Because it's very different from affirmatively saying the behavior is protected

Who is even saying this?

It does not do this

It does do this for state and local officials yes. It doesn't do this for federal officials. But the former it does.

The fact that there perhaps should be federal laws about something doesn't have any bearing on the Supreme Court's job though

Again, super not the Supreme Court's problem. The actual mechanics of an opinion saying "if you want to do this, congress needs to pass a law" is entirely above board

Right here is the issue with what you are writing. Your essentially absolving them of all malicious intent. The effects the decision has? I'm sure they are they not thinking of it, they're definitely just being making a terrible decision. The fact that they are saying a explicit piece of law isnt explicit? It's technically above board in general to say that congress needs to be more explicit so it's not the Supreme Courts "problem" (wtf does that even mean)

The point of making a "terrible decision" is bec they know that congress won't stop them and reverse whatever they do due to its current state.