Reading the article it sounds like the problem is the previous supreme court rulings on QI. It requires that a court had previously ruled that the specific act

Reading the article it sounds like the problem is the previous supreme court rulings on QI. It requires that a court had previously ruled that the specific action was a violation of constitutional rights. It had not done that on this specific action previously, but did in this case. So they get QI here because of a lack of a previous ruling, but if the someone were to do the same thing in the future, they would not be given the benefit of the doubt.