> Not having to reveal the passcode has been the rule for a while

No, its not. It is an issue that is left open in US Supreme Court Fifth Amendment case law, and on which lower courts are split.

> Not being allowed to bring that refusal up as evidence of guilt on Fifth Amendment grounds during the trial is new

No, it is well-established that you can't raise use of Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights to suggest guilt, so if not revealing passcodes is protected (which is the point in dispute that EFF is arguing to the Utah Supreme Court, and which the court immediately below agreed with), there is no dispute that refusal can't also be used to suggest guilt.

You can't say the first is left open but the second is not.

If "can I be forced to reveal the passcode" is undecided, "can refusing to do so imply guilt" depends on the resolution of the first.

> You can't say the first is left open but the second is not.

I didn't. I said, in summary, that the first is left open, but that the first necessarily implies the second is not.