This article is weirdly written. Unlike most news article they refer to the plaintiff throughout as 'James', his given name rather than 'King' his surname. The author also capitalizes 'High Court' when referring to the Supreme Court, which is not correct and had me checking to make sure this was in the US.
All that aside, this is a grave miscarriage of justice.
"The majority’s holding is a profound and frightening miscarriage of justice. That federal officers who refuse to identify themselves can spontaneously, and unprovoked, beat an
individual nearly to death and be entirely free from civil liability simply because the individual
chooses not to waste judicial resources on a frivolous appeal is not compatible with notions of an
ordered and civilized society. Because the majority follows outdated law and dismisses King’s
claims, I strongly dissent."
All that aside, this is a grave miscarriage of justice.
I would advise anyone interested to read the 6th Court of Appeals decision https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/22a0219p-06.pd..., especially the dissent:
"The majority’s holding is a profound and frightening miscarriage of justice. That federal officers who refuse to identify themselves can spontaneously, and unprovoked, beat an individual nearly to death and be entirely free from civil liability simply because the individual chooses not to waste judicial resources on a frivolous appeal is not compatible with notions of an ordered and civilized society. Because the majority follows outdated law and dismisses King’s claims, I strongly dissent."