178

Federal judge throws out U.S. ban on noncompetes (www.npr.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago by Got_Bent@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal court in Texas has thrown out the government’s ban on noncompete agreements that was set to take effect September 4.

In her ruling, Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas wrote that the federal agency had overstepped its power when it approved the ban.

"The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition," she wrote. "The role of an administrative agency is to do as told by Congress, not to do what the agency think[s] it should do.”

top 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 75 points 3 weeks ago

I know the guy who brought this suit personally. Damn near worked for him years ago. What a dick. His entire business, hundreds of millions of dollars, is shady as fuck.

Another domino from the Chevron decision falls.

I still predict that the entire tax code will be up next as it's driven by regulations written by the department of the Treasury. You know, a federal agency, and those no longer have any legal authority.

[-] ChilchuckSnack@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

Department of Treasury has less power than my local Lions Club. It's insane.

[-] Good_morning@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 weeks ago

This guy? https://ryan.com/about-ryan/leadership/brint-ryan/

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 69 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

"The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition,"

Huh?

Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914

https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/federal-trade-commission-act

The literal text of the FTC Act says:

Sec. 5. [15 U.S.C. 45] (a)(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. (2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 18(f)(3), Federal credit unions described in section 18(f)(4), common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended, except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act, from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-388/uslm/COMPS-388.xml

They are doing exactly what Congress told them to do.

[-] Atom@lemmy.world 42 points 3 weeks ago

Just the begining after striking down Chevron Deference. Sure, common sense says that is well within the purview of the FTC granted by Congress. But now, without chevron in place, the court is going to say anything that is not word for word directed by congress, is outside of an agency's jurisdiction.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago

While we're on the same side here and you're otherwise right, it WAS word for word directed by Congress!

There's literally no possible reading of the FTC Act passed by Congress that doesn't explicitly and word for word say the exact opposite of what this brains replaced with bribes fucking kangaroo court says in this gargantuan miscarriage of justice!

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 9 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, that was my take too. The language in the Act seems pretty straightforward to me, and the judge's statement seems to directly contradict it (but IANAL).

Maybe he's trying to split hairs over the FTC not having direction to regulate how employers deal with employees, and saying that doesn't fall under "commerce"?

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Maybe he's trying to split hairs over the FTC not having direction to regulate how employers deal with employees, and saying that doesn't fall under "commerce"?

Probably, but that's still absolute lunacy from the standard of objective reality and probably shaky as hell from a purely legal one too.

Might as well have ruled that the IOC aren't allowed to make decisions regarding the Olympics for all the sense this makes 🤦

[-] Atom@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

You're absolutely right, it's absurd and that's the point. For the GOP court to say the FTC can do that, they will expect Congress to pass a law saying "the FTC has the authority to ban non-compete agreements of every kind" but that's dumb and defeats the purpose of executive agencies, we agree. But that's the point. Congress will rarely if ever be that specific, so anyone can argue a law is not what they meant and the agencies have no deference.

The end goal is agencies are powerless and Congress is paralyzed, so the judiciary has all of the authority to decide what everything means.

[-] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

The supreme Court overturned Chevron. There will be more things just like this as a result. They arbitrarily stripped a ton of power from regulators.

[-] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 5 points 3 weeks ago

Words mean whatever the people in powersay they mean, and unless and until the rest of us are sick enough to actually do something about it... Well... Nothing changes if you don't do something different.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 58 points 3 weeks ago

Welp, now we know what angle the right-wing shitheads and the lower court assclowns had been cooking up. We need to win Congress as well as the White House in November, or else this shit is going to drag on for decades with states trying to battle federal regulations of any kind.

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 50 points 3 weeks ago

I didn't even need to click into this to know it was going to be the 5th Circuit Judge shopping bullshit fucking up the system yet again.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 45 points 3 weeks ago

Trump judge?

Trump judge

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 42 points 3 weeks ago

A reminder that regardless of this absurdly bad federal ruling, noncompete clauses are still unenforceable in California. So at least 40 million-ish of us are safe.

[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

Just wait. I'm sure Ken Paxton will sue California in the fifth circuit.

[-] Good_morning@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 3 weeks ago

Everytime I hear his name he's actively trying to make America a worse place to live.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I no Paxton fan. Not even a little.

That GM lawsuit... That one's worthy.

[-] ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org 9 points 3 weeks ago

one step forward, three steps back

this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024

178 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18883 readers

2713 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News