Here's an example. In 2018, a police officer slammed an unarmed man into the ground. Look at the judge's decision: http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/srepfiles/qualified-immun...
"In so holding, the Court notes that a court can almost always manufacture a factual distinction. For example, here, McGarry was in his kitchen, while York was in a Target parking lot. That kind of factual difference and all of the factual differences listed above should not make a difference in the qualified immunity analysis, but, using Judge -- now Justice -- Gorsuch’s test from Kerns v. Bader, they “might make a constitutional difference,” 663 F.3d at 1187 (emphasis in original), so the Court must conclude that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. While the Court thinks that a reasonable officer should be able to discern from York that grabbing and throwing an unarmed man to the ground without warning for arguing with a police officer amounts to excessive force, Justice Gorsuch would probably think that the police officer’s Taser threat in York is a fact that might make a difference."
The judge very much wants to NOT grant qualified immunity, but he's up against a wall and is angry about it.
I don't see that reading. I see quite the opposite. (Court opinions are hard to read, as they often veer into double- and triple-negatives)
I see that paragraph as saying that "this case is meaningfully different -- McGarry was fighting against the officer (vs York was not menacing the officer), and McGarry was very close to the officer at the time of the throwdown.
The footnote is the judge defending himself aginst claims of over-pedantic weasily rules-lawyering. He's saying a judge could make a decision based on irrelevant differences (like kitchen vs parking lot), but following Gorusch, to be fair to plaintiffs, the judge is only considering Constitutionally relevant facts.
QI says that if the officer had no way to know the behavior was illegal, he can't be sued for it. Nothing stops legislature (or executive) from reading a ruling and passing a law (or rule, resp) to clarify.
It's the opposite of "Fuck You, Gorusch".