6 ms·
Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes
- hindsightbias 2y ago> Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas The shape of everything to come. I wonder when those in the techworld will hear that little klaxon ringing in their head. “She is the first African-American woman federal judge nominated by President Donald Trump” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Brown_(judge) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Brown_(judge)
- jbm 2y ago> Brown was unanimously rated well-qualified by the American Bar Association.[23] If the experts are fine with her, on what basis should we normies be concerned?
- CPLX 2y agoGood point. There’s no sign at all in our culture of a complete breakdown of the concept of “experts” whereby everyone with a claim of academic or positional authority uses it in service of partisan wars. Imagine how disillusioned the general public would be if something like that were to happen.
- jbm 2y agoMy experience is that people attack experts incessantly when it conflicts with their politics. (Think: Anti-vaxxers attacking the medical system). In my experience they may raise good points, but those are usually tangential to the matter at hand. WRT this specific expert group, is there something wrong with them? I haven't heard such but am willing to be educated. Disillusionment is easy when one accepts sweeping generalities, but much harder when dealing with specifics. Again, only my experience, but "They are all (something)" only lasts until you take a closer look.
- CPLX 2y ago> WRT this specific expert group, is there something wrong with them? With Federalist Society judges? Oh my sweet summer child.
- sitkack 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Brown_(judge)#Memberships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Brown_(judge)#Memberships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
- jbm 2y ago> American Bar Association I mentioned them, not the Federalist society. Literally cannot understand where the reddit style purposeful rereading of my comment came from, but ok.
- CPLX 2y agoI'm not misreading your comment. The supposed "experts" within the legal profession are utterly corrupt and can't be trusted. That's my point. It's an insiders club and they all support each other and buy vacation homes and give each other's kids jobs. When principles conflict with in-group elitism and closed ranks the latter always wins. Just like every other group of supposed "experts" in the professional class these days. That's just how America is run in 2024. It's the problem.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago> "While this order is preliminary, the Court intends to rule on the ultimate merits of this action on or before August 30, 2024," she wrote. > In its complaint, Ryan LLC accused the FTC of overstepping its statutory authority in declaring all noncompetes unfair and anticompetitive. > Judge Brown agreed, writing, "The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition." > Through a statement Wednesday evening, the FTC said its authority is supported by both statute and precedent. I’m not entirely against this outcome. Things that have big impact or are controversial or are visible enough to warrant public discussion should just be acted on by congressional legislation rather than assumed executive authority. That said I think noncompetes and similar restrictions on employees are too broad and go too far in practice. They are essentially anti competitive. Still, the main problem for competition is the size and capital of incumbent mega corporations, and not JUST their noncompetes. The FTC needs to do something about that.
- jandrese 2y agoIMHO we already have good evidence about the harm to corporations we can expect to see by banning non-competes. California banned them in 1941 and everybody can see how no big business, especially tech businesses, want to be in California.
- User23 2y agoCalifornia’s legislature declared that they were contrary to public policy. It wasn’t an executive or judicial decision nor should it be. In the American system the legislature is the policy making body as well it should be on account of being the most democratic.
- dec0dedab0de 2y agodid you forget your /s?
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoNot that I believe this, but it’s always possible there would have been even more economic success, and that the historical success is despite the ban not because of it.
- specialist 2y agoFrom TFA: In its complaint, Ryan LLC accused the FTC of overstepping its statutory authority in declaring all noncompetes unfair and anticompetitive. Judge Brown agreed, writing, "The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition." They're certainly not wasting any time; the bloody corpse of The Chevron Doctrine is still warm. This is the new reality. Every single decision, rule, finding, regulation, fee / fine, and press release will now be litigated by the courts. The Roberts Court's campaign for judicial primacy has usurped all the power of the (executive branch's) administrative state. Because of course federal policy is best determined by life time appointees (beholden to their plantation class patrons) and not the anti-corporate democracy loving common citizenry. Prove me wrong.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- AlbertCory 2y ago> federal policy is best determined by life time appointees Prove you wrong? For sure. It's best determined by elected officials. Second best is judges. In last place we have bureaucrats never elected by anyone nor even appointed by someone who was.
- specialist 2y agoSarcasm. Sorry for the confusion. For future, I'll add a "/s" suffix when I'm mocking reactionary talking points.
- ceejayoz 2y agoFTC commissioners are appointed, and approved by the Senate, just like judges. The distinction you’re trying to draw doesn’t exist.
- AlbertCory 2y ago> The distinction does exist. We're just arguing about the metes and bounds of their legislatively-granted authority. I can't tell you don't agree about SCOTUS but I believe there were over 1,200 comments about that this week and there's no point in adding to it.
- monero-xmr 2y agoI don’t like noncompetes but I don’t like unelected officials making economy-wide decisions even more. Congress can do their job and pass laws. I’m tired of law making delegated to faceless bureaucrats.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Congress can do their job and pass laws. They did. They wrote a law that established the FTC and tasked it with regulating these things. > I’m tired of law making delegated to faceless bureaucrats. They're not faceless, but a group of nine (well, six) unelected bureaucrats are currently making a whole bunch of law.
- bhelkey 2y ago>> Congress can do their job and pass laws. > They did. They wrote a law that established the FTC and tasked it with regulating these things. What law gave the FTC the authority to regulate employment agreements? I appreciate the lack of non-competes in California. That being said, it is the responsibility of Congress to either write employment laws or to delegate that authority.
- ceejayoz 2y agoThe Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 states: > The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
- 2y ago
- 6510 2y agoI expected this to be boring but I almost choked on my coffee here > ....enabling its competitors to poach valuable employees, whose knowledge and training would go out the door. Thats the funniest thing I read all week.
- 6510 2y agoIt is an attempt to erase our culture, way of life, and our honor. We need the means to ensure the preservation of society and protect our race. Southerners must stop apologizing for slavery and reject the idea that it was a necessary evil! If we stop sending small children into coal mines the economy shall collapse!
- granzymes 2y agoThe question before the Court in this case was whether the FTC has the power to issue substantive rules related to unfair methods of competition. The Court concludes[0] that the FTC does not have that power, and that Section 6(g) of the FTC Act permits the FTC only to issue "housekeeping" rules related to agency organization, procedure, or practice. That follows from three main statutory and historical clues: 1) Section 6(g) contains no penalty provision—which indicates a lack of substantive force. Other grants of substantive rulemaking specify what happens if regulated entities don't follow the rule. 2) The location of Section 6(g) is suspect. It's the seventh in a list of twelve almost entirely investigative powers, and starts with a grant of organizational power to "from time to time classify corporations". This is hardly where you would expect to find sweeping substantive rulemaking power if Congress had in fact chosen to grant it. 3) The FTC has not historically seen itself as possessing the power to issue substantive rules on unfair methods of competition. Courts are skeptical of agencies discovering latent powers decades later. Overall, this is exactly what commentators expected to happen. Banning noncompetes may well be good policy, but it's up to the legislature (whether Congress or in individual states) to enact that policy. In addition, nothing in this decision prevents the FTC from using its adjudicatory powers to go after individual examples of noncompetes which it believes are unfair methods of competition. [0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.389064/gov.uscourts.txnd.389064.153.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...
- kogus 2y agoThank you for a thoughtful summary of what really happened. So many people are focused on outcomes that they would destroy the plumbing of government to get where they want to be.
- SubiculumCode 2y agoFor all the talk of a politicized Supreme Court, I'm not so sure that the net result has been to empower authoritarianism, even if it limits their personal liability to later prosecution. Shutting down Chevron principal empowers the Legislature, it seems to me.
- standardUser 2y agoIf we stop electing so many far-right, burn-it-all-down, my-opponents-are-my-sworn enemy, conspiracy-prone politicians we might actually get useful legislation and could stop relying on the elderly and untouchable judicial branch.
- hindsightbias 2y agohttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/fact-sheet-ftcs-proposed-final-noncompete-rule https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...
- slaymaker1907 2y agoCan we just dissolve the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas? They continually harm the entire country with their nonsense. Almost every “crazy” decision you’ve heard about in recent years comes from this one district.
- dano 2y agohttps://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/shopping-for-the-judge-you-want-honed-to-perfection-in-texas https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/shopping-for-the-j...
- lsllc 2y agoDupe, posted earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40870515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40870515
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- BadHumans 2y agoI predicted this as soon as they announced the ban on noncompetes. If you want this to happen then vote for politicians that have an interest in keeping corporations in check and get a bill passed in Congress. Otherwise, it will just get overturned.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- daft_pink 2y agoThe current FTC has a terrible track record and all their things are being struck down :(
- sitkack 2y agoManaging from below because congress is too worried about looking bad by making a decision.
- caustic-view 2y ago[flagged]
- red-iron-pine 2y ago[flagged]
- downrightmike 2y agoPretty screwed up that a single judge can block an entire agency
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoIt only applies to the plaintiffs in the case.