“...relies on a novel reading of an obscure provision of the Constitution,”
Translation: the Court is paying attention to what the Constitution actually says, not what liberals think it should say.
And the sharp-as-a-tack "journalistic outlet" points nowhere to the actual law, but simply makes the wild, unsubstantiated claim that this decision will neutralize the government's ability to combat financial fraud. That's laughable on its face. This decision will reinforce the country's prosecutors' deafness to all financial crimes?
How reminiscent is that of "giving up the Constitution on a (fake) promise of protection?"