It's not an argument for the court room, and I'm not sure why you'd interpret it that way. It's an argument against the type of law you're proposing ever being written in the first place.
So you assert, but I see no reason to agree with that assertion. There are a lot of problems with trying to write a law that criminalizes "Super Powers" in general, not the least of which is defining what a "Super Power" even is. It's also not helpful beyond the sort of fearmongering that should be avoided. Most uses of "Super Powers" that should be illegal are already illegal because they're just another means of doing something that's already illegal; you don't need separate laws to cover assaulting someone with a sledgehammer and a broadsword, so there's no reason to add a new law covering assaulting someone with a flamethrower. Even with the case in this story, the defense isn't based on whether pyrokinesis could be a deadly weapon, rather it focuses on the how it was employed and why.
In terms of mind reading, there probably shouldn't be a general law against it, both because it's impossible to prove and because you run into people who can't control it, but don't actually cause harm with it. You might reasonably right laws against more invasive forms of mind reading, that leave evidence, or explicitly banning the use of information gained from mind reading in certain circumstances, but that's about it. In most other cases the illegality should be a result of how the information gained was used, not just the fact that the mind reader overheard someone's thoughts.
Because the court room is where the arguments are going to have to be made...
One or more City, County, or States are going to pass stupid laws... One or more people are going to sue people with Super Powers, be it for personal injury or other things... And one or more Super Powered individuals are going to sue to stop a stupid law that already passed...
And we aren't talking about a law that criminalizes "Super Powers" in general... We are talking about laws that criminalizes
the use of Super Powers on other people... (And yes, I'm simplifying a bit here because of course there would have to be Good Samaritan, Medical, and Given Permission protections.)
Further the reason why we don't need different laws covering assaulting people with a sledgehammer and assaulting people with a broadsword is because both of those things fall under various "weapon" definitions, which means attacking people with them is part of the broader category of "assault with a weapon" laws...
You do not want Super Powers, even specific types of Super Powers, to fall under the legal definition of "weapons"... Because really really bad things lie down that road... (I say specific types here because, due to the insanely varied nature of Super Powers, the most you could ever really do is slip them into board categories similar to what you get with "weapons" covering, well, weapons.)
As to reading a persons mind without permission... The vast majority of the public will demand laws against it once Telepaths actually being a thing fully sinks into the public conciseness... At which point at least some politicians will see an easy win to hold up on their campaign trails and pass feel good laws prohibiting it... As to proving such things... Yes... It would be hard... And regulated to pretty much the rare cases of either another telepath catching them in the act, the telepath in question telling people about it, or them in some way using information they couldn't have gotten through other means... But "feel good" laws aren't about completely stopping a certain type of act... They're about reassuring the public and making them feel like something is being done...
Though, given we are talking politicians it's very possible they may push anti-mind reading laws without public pressure to do it because they want to lower the risk of the public finding out about all their illegal/shady acts.
