The issue they always raise is that encryption that is properly implemented (along with the relevant devices that are encrypted properly) is effectively unbreakable and equals a "get out of jail free" card to the extent that it invalidates the second half of the statement (without a warrant approved by a judge) which grants lawful justification for invalidating that right/protection.

I think this is a part of what's driving the adoption of passkeys (which seem to only require biometrics) because the biometrics part invaliates the entire protection (producing your fingerprint or face is not protected, only speech/testimonial). They eliminate phishing (unlawful theats) and facillitate bypassing encryption (lawful threats), no matter how strong.