Wait, but aren't so many of the important US supreme court rulings so contested because they have to consider the ramifications, e.g., of whether a ruling will take power away from the state and give it to the federal government? How is that not a "what if" scenario? Isn't the Baston rule just a big loophole?
Appellate courts get to make such considerations, but not the lower court. The lower court judge can say "I believe the facts say X and therefore law Y should apply" but the appellate courts can say that the interpretation or Y or even law Y itself is incorrect and tell the lower court judge to reconsider the outcome of using law Y in that manner given facts X.
This is why companies with weak crypto can perhaps avoid liability for disclosure, because the crypto shows that they "intended to" protect the information, and it's not zero work to break, even if it's /now/ cheap.
(have law degree, not practising lawyer)