The short answer is that we don't know for sure, but that the Court is almost certainly divided. Shipwreckedcrew--whom I take to task in another respect--has a detailed explanation that's worth studying.
Justice Alito (who handles PA for the SCOTUS), no doubt after extended consultation with the other justices, has directed the attorneys for PA to reply to the Trump side's request for injunctive relief (to prevent certification). HOWEVER ...
The deadline for the reply is the day after the slate of electors will be basically set in stone (the "safe harbor" date).
Is there any hope from this? Possibly.
Obviously the PA attorneys will delay until the slate of electors is set.
Nevertheless, this decision pertains only to the request for injunctive relief. There appears to be a steady flow of substantial evidence of fraud that is being uncovered. Here's how SWC sees it:
Justice Alito’s order likely means there are not 5 votes to grant the emergency injunctive relief and prevent the naming of Pennsylvania’s electors — at least not with respect to the complaint filed by Congressman Kelly seeking to declare the entire “vote-by-mail” scheme enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature as a violation of Pennsylvania’s Constitution.
But the fact that he has ordered Pennsylvania to respond does suggest that there may be some sentiment in the Court to take up the case — likely in combination with other cases now before the Court regarding the Pennsylvania election process.
But this means that the SCOTUS isn't inclined to try to rescue us from this national disgrace. I can understand that, from one perspective. The justices know that the SCOTUS is a fragile institution--ultimately weak in the face of the political branches. It relies for its authority on its prestige, and is loath to invest that authority in political disputes. What it needs is some real sense that the national sentiment is behind it, and that's precisely what it lacks in this political dispute. Yes, I know that there's more than politics involved in this--far more. But still ...
The justices can see as well as any of us that our constitutional order is broken. If you were a justice would you elect to, perhaps, go down fighting but sacrifice any hope of restoring that order, or would you essentially play for time in the hope that a clear national mandate for that restoration emerges? In other words, try to preserve what can be preserved of the constitutional order. There's a lot that could be said. Here's what SWC says:
The bigger problem we have as a nation is that we are acquiescing to voting processes that are not capable of being verified and tested in a meaningful fashion during the time period available under the statutes and Constitutional provisions that determine how Presidents are selected. The voting process is captive to partisan political interests with a motivation to bend it to their needs. Then, when their actions are questioned, those raising the concerns learn that all the “evidence” that might establish what took place is within the control of the same partisan actors, and everything becomes subject to efforts to “run out the clock” on any bona fide challenges.
The country needs uniform voting standards and procedures across all 50 states. The security and integrity protocols need to be the same across all 50 states. The audit and electoral contest procedures need to be the same across all 50 states.
I'm sure none of that is news to the justices, but they also know that only Congress can take the necessary action. Congress has had lots of time to take that action, but they haven't--largely because We the People haven't demanded action. That's symptomatic of real systemic dysfunction that is a product of corrupt Dem appeals to identity politics.
It's all unutterably sad. I will say this. If it comes to a Biden inauguration, I hope that Trump can see his way to not lending dignity to such a travesty.