The ruling sides with the administration in the argument that the courts have no authority to settle this dispute, and instead, Congress can wield it's various powers (including impeachment) to try and "bring the Executive Branch to heel." So the ruling is essentially the opposite of your thread title. It was congress using it's authority to attempt to compel information. It actually further justifies impeachment as the correct path, as opposed to using the courts if the courts say they don't have the authority.
The absence of a judicial remedy doesn’t render Congress powerless. Instead, the Constitution gives Congress a series of political tools to bring the Executive Branch to heel. See Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996, 1004 (1979) (opinion of Rehnquist, J.) (noting that the “coequal branches of our Government” have “resources available to protect and assert [their] interests”). Congress (or one of its chambers) may hold officers in contempt, withhold appropriations, refuse to confirm the President’s nominees, harness public opinion, delay or derail the President’s legislative agenda, or impeach recalcitrant officers. See Chafetz, supra, at 1152-53; see also H.R. Res. 755, 116th Cong., at 6 (2019) (impeaching President Trump for “obstruction of Congress”). And Congress can wield these political weapons without dragging judges into the fray
