These legal nuances don't seem like that. The court held that creating a traffic jam between states did not violate a civil right to travel between states (because that right does not exist). And that it wasn't fraud because it just made people's lives miserable as opposed to depriving them of something physical.
I think that it was fraud. Any non-politician who submitted false documents causing the Port Authority to close a bridge lane would be easily convicted of fraud, making knowingly false statements with the intent and effect of preventing the Port Authority from making full use of its valuable property. The Supreme Court ruling is pretty explicit that Bridget Kelly's status as a political aide is why she could not be convicted; because her boss had regulatory authority to close the lanes for honest reasons, the Port Authority has no property interest in any closure she orders, even if it was ordered for dishonest reasons.
What crime do you think was committed?