Supreme Court Ruling: Police Have No Duty to Protect the General Public
https://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/
If the police have no duty to protect....then they become nothing more than agents of an oppressive government if this remains operative. In this case, Scalia was wrong. The local police have a duty to protect the public against threats to their lives which includes protection from federal authorities.
If you give the police a legal duty to protect the public, they could literally be sued every time a criminal commits a crime against a person because that would constitute a breach of the "duty to protect."
Maybe you think bankrupting every community with such lawsuits is a good idea, but I don't, and I don't think most taxpayers would either.
Of course, that's actually a policy argument, and it isn't the job of the Supreme Court to invent or deny legal duties based on whether or not they believe it is good policy. It's their job to interpret the laws as written. And in that case, there was no law or constitutional provision stating that police have an enforceable legal duty to protect people. So Scalia was completely correct in not inventing such a right.