Being locked up at work without compensation. I guess the Constitution's "involuntary servitude" wording was meant for other contexts (actual 24/7 slavery), but this still seems like a basic human rights violation. But maybe the US Supreme Court doesn't view itself as a human rights court, so I don't know. That's why I asked.

That simply isn't how the Supreme (or any) court works. Perhaps there is a servitude issue at hand, but that is not the argument that the plaintiff made.

So what you're saying is that this is exactly how the Supreme Court works if someone comes and makes an appropriate argument?