7 ms·

Not being a lawyer, I would think that an EO can be used in any case where there is a long standing policy to ignore existing law or interpret it in a particula

Not being a lawyer, I would think that an EO can be used in any case where there is a long standing policy to ignore existing law or interpret it in a particular way. So what laws might apply? The FTC says: "The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable." https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... So maybe enormous power could be found in the executive branch by simply declaring that non-competes are "unreasonable" and defending that in court.

yeuxardents 5y ago
I think the larger issue of accomplishing this, and many other actions, via EO, is that the nexts administration can simply turn around and revoke or alter at-will. We saw that from Obama->Trump->Biden administrations pretty swiftly in first few months of each successive administration.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Right, this is why EOs don't have the force or law or are able to change how courts interpret existing law. They are rules for the federal administration only, but they can have an effect by the power of the purse, for example not purchasing goods from vendors that don't adopt a policy.
rsj_hn 5y ago
An EO is not going to change precedent or case law about what is considered a restraint of trade by the supreme court. Executive orders are instructions by the President to the executive branch, not to the legislature or courts.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >An EO is not going to change precedent or case law about what is considered a restraint of trade by the supreme court Based on the quote from the FTC, it doesn't need to. The Supreme Court said that something must be "unreasonable" to be a restraint of trade. Declaring something to be unreasonable is not modifying the criterion set forth by the courts one iota. If the door is open, drive a truck through it.

yeuxardents 5y ago

I think the larger issue of accomplishing this, and many other actions, via EO, is that the nexts administration can simply turn around and revoke or alter at-will. We saw that from Obama->Trump->Biden administrations pretty swiftly in first few months of each successive administration.

rsj_hn 5y ago
Right, this is why EOs don't have the force or law or are able to change how courts interpret existing law. They are rules for the federal administration only, but they can have an effect by the power of the purse, for example not purchasing goods from vendors that don't adopt a policy.

rsj_hn 5y ago

An EO is not going to change precedent or case law about what is considered a restraint of trade by the supreme court. Executive orders are instructions by the President to the executive branch, not to the legislature or courts.

perl4ever 5y ago
>An EO is not going to change precedent or case law about what is considered a restraint of trade by the supreme court Based on the quote from the FTC, it doesn't need to. The Supreme Court said that something must be "unreasonable" to be a restraint of trade. Declaring something to be unreasonable is not modifying the criterion set forth by the courts one iota. If the door is open, drive a truck through it.