"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed 20 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."
-7th amendment of the U.S. constitution.
Which means a 25c lemonade claim doesn't get a trial, but literally something as low 20$ would.
My point is that the intention of this comic is the classic comedic juxtaposition between an "otherwise serious trial" and "ridiculous happenstance there in." However, when the U.S. still must legally acknowledge a claim as small as 20$, (because they didn't consider inflation at the time,) The intention misses the mark on the face of it. I Know this is being picky and a minor detail but I thought I would try to explain why it all fell apart for me. Luckily not everyone is a pol-sci minor like me so good job anyway!