The Los Angeles Times sets forth the competing views.
Simply as a matter of Remedies law, it seems to me that if the case is dismissed, then Judge Walker’s statewide injunction would stand. Professor Roosevelt is right that Judge Walker likely did not have the authority to grant a statewide injunction (because it goes beyond the scope of the wrong done to the plaintiffs), but the governor could choose to follow the injunction statewide because the judge would have declared the law unconstitutional to rule for the plaintiffs in the case.
I’d add this further point. Assuming that Judge Walker did not have the authority to issue a statewide injunction, the DIG of the case would restore that order, which I don’t think could be further appealed. One could try to argue to modify the injunction or reopen the case under Rule 60, which would be discretionary (not clear which judge would hear that dispute as Judge Walker has left the bench).