Those two in Philadelphia did, because the ruling wasn't applied retroactively. The dissenting judge argued that it should have been. But there's nothing in the opinion about immunity for future violations.

No, the court just wants to pretend like it is the source of inalienable rights, as if these rights just came into being because of its decision. They didn't.

Courts clarify Constitutional rights. Which they did here. Or mangle them, as they've done re the drug war etc.