Same thing. He was charged and arrested because someone said he did something. What's the difference?
The difference is the policy specifically states they will suspend based on a criminal charge. Whereas it doesn't state that it will lead to suspension based on an accusation.
Where the university went wrong with this is that the policy itself has terms that protect the student that it did not allow to happen, in large part because the timing of the charges would have meant that review would have been ongoing during the basketball season.
So you have the situation where Terrence Shannon has been arrested for a violent crime, but the university by its own terms can't do anything until it allows the student to plead his case. They didn't allow that, in part because they knew the time between allegation and arrest was a period of months, and they were trying to appear to take this sort of thing seriously. So they jumped the gun.
THAT is why they shouldn't have suspended him, according to Judge Lawless.
Had the university followed its own terms, investigated the matter appropriately, allowed Terrence to present his case to them, they still could have suspended him completely irrespective of the results of the criminal case. But because they failed to do that, the court granted him an injunction.
Late edit: as the podcast pointed out, it's quite unlikely the injunction would have been granted to Luke Goode or AJ Redd. Because they couldn't say the same level of harm would be caused for them. Which means the university could have suspended them the exact same way, and it's possible a different form of relief is provided instead.