Sure, but it's irrelevant in this case because the Constitution prevents Congress and the states from passing an ex post facto law, not the courts from applying

Sure, but it's irrelevant in this case because the Constitution prevents Congress and the states from passing an ex post facto law, not the courts from applying a new precedent to past events. I was just trying to argue that applying court decisions to events in the past doesn't violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws.