> It’s not clear how equating “money” with “private property” fits into the relevant analysis of whether an action is “legal” or “equitable” under the Seventh Amendment. ... And certainly CS Lawn cites no precedent for the *remarkable proposition that violations of public rights transform into private rights simply because those violations are enforced by monetary penalties*. ... But, in any event, money is not necessarily “property” for *constitutional purposes*.

and then goes on to discuss how money has been distinguished from property in other constitutional analysis e.g. why all taxes aren't deprivations or takings under the Due Process or Takings clauses. It's not an argument that money does not belong to its owner, but that money is constitutionally differentiated from property, and that differentiation was contemplated by the founders.

NB this is in the context of a business that availed itself the H2-B program contesting a finding by administrative law courts that it failed to adhere to some of the requirements of that program, and is therefore assessed a fine (which was reduced by each successive appeal within the administrative court system). They're effectively arguing, via a grab-bag of constitutional arguments, that they deserve a different sort of trial than they agreed to by (1) using the H2-B program and (2) litigating with the agreed-upon system for four years.