>

Makes zero sense. Rights are there specifically to keep the government from violating them, and the ruling is that "well these government agents have special immunity so of course they're allowed to violate your rights!"
Young ruled last year that federal immunity laws shielded Crocker and Gutierrez from Nazario’s claims that they violated his constitutional protections against excessive force and unreasonable seizure, as well as Nazario’s right to free speech by threatening him with arrest if he complained about their behavior.

That sounds interesting for why there would be "federal immunity shield" preventing a claim for actions that seem to be exactly what the government isn't allowed to do.  I'd dig into that further, but I've had enough disappointment for one day.  I'm sure there is some technical basis for why that "makes sense", but it doesn't read positively in this summary.