[freddie_mercury]

Kind of weird framing as "historic" and "violated the Constitution" when the actual decision from the court just says,

"Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), we hold that Sun Valley was entitled to have its case decided by an Article III court."

Usually it is a non-story when lower courts start following a brand new Supreme Court precedent. Not sure why this one is on HN or why even really why it warranted 10,000 words in the original link.

[arcfour]

It was interesting to read about the impact that unconstitutional actions by the government had on actual people in a real case, and how a Supreme Court ruling remedied it (partially). What a bizarre response. Do you have something against these people or something?

[freddie_mercury]

I found the initial lack of mention of the recent Supreme Court ruling weird and when I read the actual Circuit Court decision I felt the actual article was bad, biased journalism bordering on outright lying.

The article spends a lot of time telling us about this fourth generation farm and telling us about workers who quit after one day.

The actual circuit decision says they didn't provide adequate housing -- failing to put insect screens on doors and windows leading to an insect infestation and putting mattresses directly on the floor which is known to create mold. They also failed to provide free food as required and even started selling beverages at profit with no notice you the workers. They are also supposed to provide free transportation but were found to be using drivers who were driving illegally without licenses in all 5 vehicles.

I'm in favor of them getting a trial in a real court but the whole article smells fishy to me and came across as incredibly biased.

[arcfour]

That is a much different response than "this article is not newsworthy at all, why would you even publish it?"