You can find the order of the court here. Two justices did not participate, and two justices partially dissented.
As I understand it, for the so-called “fifth pile” ballots that were rejected for a reason other than the four reasons given in the Minnesota statutes, the county canvassing boards are to count only fifth pile ballots that the board and both candidates agree should be counted. Any ballots for which there is a dispute will not be opened, and will be handled in a later election contest (if there is one). The order (to be followed by a later opinion) notes that frivolous objections could subject counsel to sanctions in any later elections contest.
The dissenters want ballots counted that the canvassing boards agree were erroneously excluded, regardless of what the candidates say. One of the dissenters also notes that it is the candidates, not counsel, that controls which ballots are excluded, and therefore later sanctions don’t appear likely.
The Star-Tribune‘s coverage is here.