You're assuming there is another side, which there seems to be no reason whatsoever to assume. The facts, outside of the government's behavior, are extremely benign and supported by decades of precedent by the exact same people doing the exact same stuff in the exact same way. I'm certain the guys who quit, or even if they were fired, on the first day didn't expect to get a crop year's salary out of it. This makes the government's behavior all the more absurd. Yet the government's behavior is not in question, only the constitutionality of it. And indeed it turns out that it was unconstitutional.

> You're assuming there is another side, which there seems to be no reason whatsoever to assume

There are at least two sides to every contract, that's how contracts work. There are a lot of people lining up to defend the business owner, and I'm not finding a single word from any of the H-2A workers, who are uniquely powerless and in a class who has a well-documented history of being exploited.

Those workers 'quitting' was found to be constructive dismissal. They were coerced into quitting, that's the 'other side.' That meant they surrendered their transportation costs back home (which they would've been entitled to if they were fired), and arguably lost out on other work they could've done.

They can't say anything more than 'yeah we were totally fired'. So it comes down to motivation, witnesses, history, etc. The farmers have been running this farm for decades with an upstanding record, and have zero motivation to want to get rid of the employees they hired unless those employees could not competently do the labor they were hired to do.

By contrast the workers themselves signed up for some of the most brutal/specialized farm work (which they may not have understood had they lied and never actually done it before - it's one of the highest paid crops for laborers), zero witnesses to their claims (and in fact they could only get 3 of the 17 workers to even claim that they were fired), and were able to carry out a freeroll for a crop year of salary by saying 'Yeah uh we were fired.' Anonymously. Through a translator. Provided by some NGO. Online. While in Mexico. At home.

In the end if one has to make a probability judgement, this is not even remotely close. And indeed this is why the farmers are cheering having their constitutional right to a fair trial granted - they're going to win this literally 100% of the time to the point that this is practically fit for summary judgement. Again the only thing particularly weird here are the government's actions.

Yes, you have recited the business' argument. However, fta:

> (When contacted by Agweb regarding the Sun Valley case, DOL referred all questions to DOJ. When contacted by Agweb, DOJ did not respond.)

So we're basically hearing the side of the story from the business' lawyers, since the regime's DOJ is vehemently not on the side of laborers and certainly not willing to vouch for the prior administration.

At the end of the day this is just a debate about whether they're due a jury trial, and this is all a matter of political philosophy. I'm personally of the opinion that jury trials are inappropriate in civil cases, and should only be used for criminal trials, so I don't really get worked up about the right of this business to get one.

I haven't recited anybody's argument. These are the basic facts of the case. The fact that they don't leave any room for a meaningful counter-argument is the entire point.

The reason the constitution guarantees a trial by jury is to avoid tyranny. I have no idea what perspective you're coming from that you want to destroy the lives of the farmers here when I'm fairly certain you realize that no fair court in this world will ever find them guilty. And that's precisely why the constitution enshrines your right to a trial by jury - to avoid kangaroo courts where the same person(s) accusing you of something is the one judging your guilt or innocence. That's how you get things like the witch trials, Spanish Inquisition, and so on endlessly throughout history.

It's part of the Bill of Rights. This is the entirety of the 7th Amendment:

---

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

---

It was written in the times before governments started printing funny money so $20 remained fairly consistent, but even if you want it inflation adjusted it's about $700. And in this case, there was hundreds of thousands of dollars and the entire livelihood of numerous people at stake. I just can't understand your perspective here whatsoever.