IANAL but I beg to differ. Jury nullification could be modified or invalidated by the SCOTUS, at any time (provided a suitable opportunity comes before them). The law is what they say it is.
Was the First Amendment not clear? Yet they upheld McCain-Feingold. The Second? Yet they nibbled away at that. Eminent domain was clearly restricted by the Constitution, to certain purposes, yet now...
They discover rights not in there, they interpret a way around those that are in there.
So you actually believe that if SCOTUS says the moon is green cheese, we should all act as if it were? And in this case, you can even do the right thing and there’s nothing they can do about it. What’s the problem? Jury nullification is well established as being accepted among the founders, so if today’s statists don’t like it, too bad. In fact so much the better. As far as I’m concerned, they’d have to pass a Constitutional amendment to override what was even an accepted practice back then, even if not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. Oh, and IANAL either, so this is just common sense, not legal advice.