An analogy:
Gmail is like having a safe at your bank, if the police want something in it, they get a warrant to search your safe. E2E Crypto is like having a safe at home, if they want something in it, they get a warrant to search your house.
So I wouldn't say it circumvents any warrants, it just changes who is served said warrant.
Ergo, the FBI-unlocking-dead-guy's-iPhone thing, and the key-disclosure thing.
My machine doesn't, but I do, unless I am willing to face the consequences of being in contempt of court.
If your argument is that they're willing to face the consequences in order to perpetrate their greater crime, then (respectfully) you've missed two crucial points:
1. US legal tradition wholeheartedly rejects the goal of absolute security. Better to suffer a few terrorist attacks than live in a surveillance state (yes, yes ... I know... not the point...)
2. Deterrence, in general, doesn't work against self-sacrificing adversaries. Even if crypto were outlawed, terrorists would still use end-to-end crypto, and refuse to comply with a court order to decrypt.
The great issue here is the total unbreakability of crypto when compared to e.g. a safe. Before this, all we had was human memory which is very limited.