There seems to be a lot of confusion about the Supreme Court order finding the Emoluments Clause litigation moot. That ruling says nothing on the merits. It doesn't preclude future enforcement. It just so happened that the cases moved slowly enough that Trump evaded scrutiny.

Before Trump, there was no civil litigation under the Emoluments Clauses--only enforcement within the government (mainly through OLC). Now, there's a roadmap: judicial decisions on the merits and standing (for private parties and states) & far more understanding of these clauses.

If these issues arise again--and, hopefully, they don't--we won't be starting from scratch. It would be far easier to follow the roadmap and get to an enforceable judicial decision. That matters, as does the enhanced public understanding of constitutional anti-corruption norms.

Why were the cases mooted? Because the relief sought--declaratory and injunctive relief to stop Trump's receipt of emoluments while holding office--was by definition only available while he was in office. If he had been re-elected, the case would have remained live.