Really hoping this case doesn't succeed and set a precedent because it could have even greater insane knock-on effects than how it looks on the surface. It would also be a massive power grab by the judiciary - so good odds it will work!

Basically we have the same idea as the phone-cracking case the FBI pushed a few years ago. You - whether the company who made a product, the owner of a product, or just some two-bit open-source dev who has no idea who is using his product - are being assessed a legal responsibility to enforce the law on behalf of the government. All your actions must agree with what makes law enforcement's job easier, even if that inconveniences you or your customers. Friendly jackbooted agents can simply declare whatever you are doing is illegal based on whether they felt inconvenienced that day or not.

No, if Congress wants to make it illegal to not "make a product that possibly makes a fed's job more difficult" they need to pass that law.

The closest existing analogue I can think of is where it can be illegal in some locales to put traps in your own home or set up any kind of defense system (even guard dogs) that could harm a law enforcement officer, even if the LEOs are entering illegally in the first place. There's also the Good Samaritan laws. Those laws are bullshit too, but at least they all focus on preventing physical harm to somebody. This is transparent "you must bend over for the government and let us access your back door, son".