This isn’t correct. Here’s what the actual denial of the case says (which I’ll take from an earlier comment of mine on this in another thread):

In Counterman, the Court made clear that the First Amendment bars the use of “an objective stand- ard” like negligence for punishing speech, id., at 78, 79, n. 5, and it read Claiborne and other incitement cases as “de- mand[ing] a showing of intent,” 600 U. S., at 81. The Court explained that “the First Amendment precludes punish- ment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”

…

Because this Court may deny certi- orari for many reasons, including that the law is not in need of further clarification, its denial today expresses no view about the merits of Mckesson’s claim. Although the Fifth Circuit did not have the benefit of this Court’s recent deci- sion in Counterman when it issued its opinion, the lower courts now do.

This is basically saying “we just had a case about this, and the ruling is clear. Lower courts can go back and deal with it. There’s no reason for us to take it up again.” It’s a procedural nothingburger.