The US Supreme Court is not the ultimate moral authority. You’re responding to a comment addressing the abstract long-term consequences of a policy with a specific legal determination saying the policy didn’t happen to violate US law.
We use the court system as a way of resolving conflicts where there are competing interests and arguments to be made. The Supreme Court had a similar situation happen 116 years ago, and they found that the public health interests outweighed the competing arguments.
What's the alternative method for making decisions when there are competing legal arguments?
You are now failing to accept the point made, and changing the argument.