5 ms·

The Chevron overturn will be an issue here. The question isn't whether non-competes can be banned, its whether the FTC has jurisdiction and authority.

FireBeyond 2y ago
Hah. The judge even said that even if the FTC had the jurisdiction and authority to do this, it still "had not justified" it. Not only do you need to have the jurisdiction and authority, but some random judge can decide you haven't justified it to her liking and block it anyway.
- mlinhares 2y ago
  Forum shopping at its best, glad Texas is setting a great example here, showing that if you have enough money you can do everything.
- hk1337 2y ago
  The way I read it the judge said it was too broad.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    If it was within their authority[1], then it is of no relevance what a particular judge thinks of its scope. [1] Acknowledging that in this case, the judge also believes it's not within their authority.
    - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
      Rulings, and the agencies that make them, have very little legislative authority after Chevron’s collapse.
  - jquery 2y ago
    But they judge shopped for this. It makes a mockery of our system.
  - grahamjameson 2y ago
    I can’t help but appreciate the irony as someone who has been forced into numerous non-competes that were too broad. In Texas, nonetheless.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  That's how our legal system has been allowed to operate all the way down to civil court unfortunately. I've seen much the same happen first hand in civil matters. I've also seen a person convicted of a crime when the case took 4 years to be tried, a charge that had max of 1 year in jail mind you, and the only evidence offered was eye witness testimonials that disagreed with each other and photos of the scene (aka a room) taken days before trial and having nothing to do with the crime in question. Our legal system is far from infallible.
rtkwe 2y ago
Also state vs federal have different abilities to regulate, states aren't bound by the constitutional limits in the Articles just the Bill of Rights and Amendments.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Also state vs federal Congress absolutely has the right to regulate employment.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > Congress absolutely has the right to regulate employment. On what basis? What provision in the Constitution gives Congress that power?
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      the entire amendment process? How do you think federal minimum wage was implemented? The supreme court can strike it down, but congress very much can introduce federal bills pertaining to labor.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > the entire amendment process? How do you think federal minimum wage was implemented? Are you saying there was a Constitutional amendment empowering Congress to impose a minimum wage? Which one?
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        laws =/= amendments. Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution". Which includes the process of how congress and the president sign off on a law. There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage. Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution, you perform an even more involved process which includes ratification from 75% of the states. But this is extremely difficult, by design. >Which one? In this case, the US code for this is The Fair Labor Standards Act Of 1938, last amended in 2011. But the amendment to this act that increases minimum wage was last amended in 2009.
lovecg 2y ago
My understanding was that Chevron was specifically about the cases where the law was ambiguous, allowing the agencies to come up with reasonable interpretations on their own. Was that an issue here?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Was that an issue here? Yes. The FTC’s powers over employment aren’t as clearly defined.
- hedora 2y ago
  Congress has been working under the assumption that Chevron was the law of the land for decades. That let them produce laws that delegated technical rulemaking to experts with relevant experience. The idea is that the law would be more responsive to changing times, and that it could be simpler, since it wouldn't need to encode obscure technical standards. However, the Supreme Court decided to legislate from the bench and transfer that authority to unelected judges. Now, the federal government is all screwed up because none of the laws work as intended, and, so far, the judges wielding this newfound authority have demonstrated some mixture of incompetence and corruption. I'd like to think they're all taking night school engineering and economics classes to bridge the newly-created skills shortage, but, somehow, I doubt it. For example: In this case, the courts have come to the nonsensical conclusion that (quoting the article) "The FTC, which enforces antitrust laws and regulates competition", doesn't have the authority to regulate non-compete clauses, and further claims there's no evidence that the proposed regulation would do anything beneficial (despite 80+ years of case studies from California, which happens to have the largest economy in the US.)
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    > The idea is that the law would be more responsive to changing times, and that it could be simpler, since it wouldn't need to encode obscure technical standards. No, the idea was to supply more power to unelected officials who are not under the scrutiny of the people. Said unelected officials being bought for by various private interests and ruling in their favor whenever and however possible, regardless of the constitution. > However, the Supreme Court decided… transfer that authority to unelected judges. No they didn’t. The authority went back to where it belonged, the legislative branch. The legislative branch has no power to defer legislation to anyone but themselves. > [The FTC] doesn't have the authority to regulate non-compete clauses They do; in regards to the federal law as it is written, of which there are no laws currently. If they wish to see non-competes die (and I would like for them die) then they have to do it properly: by getting a law made. Not by making a “ruling” which has no legal standing in a post-Chevron world.

FireBeyond 2y ago

Hah. The judge even said that even if the FTC had the jurisdiction and authority to do this, it still "had not justified" it. Not only do you need to have the jurisdiction and authority, but some random judge can decide you haven't justified it to her liking and block it anyway.

mlinhares 2y ago
Forum shopping at its best, glad Texas is setting a great example here, showing that if you have enough money you can do everything.
hk1337 2y ago
The way I read it the judge said it was too broad.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  If it was within their authority[1], then it is of no relevance what a particular judge thinks of its scope. [1] Acknowledging that in this case, the judge also believes it's not within their authority.
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    Rulings, and the agencies that make them, have very little legislative authority after Chevron’s collapse.
- jquery 2y ago
  But they judge shopped for this. It makes a mockery of our system.
- grahamjameson 2y ago
  I can’t help but appreciate the irony as someone who has been forced into numerous non-competes that were too broad. In Texas, nonetheless.
_heimdall 2y ago
That's how our legal system has been allowed to operate all the way down to civil court unfortunately. I've seen much the same happen first hand in civil matters. I've also seen a person convicted of a crime when the case took 4 years to be tried, a charge that had max of 1 year in jail mind you, and the only evidence offered was eye witness testimonials that disagreed with each other and photos of the scene (aka a room) taken days before trial and having nothing to do with the crime in question. Our legal system is far from infallible.

rtkwe 2y ago

Also state vs federal have different abilities to regulate, states aren't bound by the constitutional limits in the Articles just the Bill of Rights and Amendments.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Also state vs federal Congress absolutely has the right to regulate employment.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > Congress absolutely has the right to regulate employment. On what basis? What provision in the Constitution gives Congress that power?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    the entire amendment process? How do you think federal minimum wage was implemented? The supreme court can strike it down, but congress very much can introduce federal bills pertaining to labor.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > the entire amendment process? How do you think federal minimum wage was implemented? Are you saying there was a Constitutional amendment empowering Congress to impose a minimum wage? Which one?
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        laws =/= amendments. Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution". Which includes the process of how congress and the president sign off on a law. There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage. Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution, you perform an even more involved process which includes ratification from 75% of the states. But this is extremely difficult, by design. >Which one? In this case, the US code for this is The Fair Labor Standards Act Of 1938, last amended in 2011. But the amendment to this act that increases minimum wage was last amended in 2009.

lovecg 2y ago

My understanding was that Chevron was specifically about the cases where the law was ambiguous, allowing the agencies to come up with reasonable interpretations on their own. Was that an issue here?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Was that an issue here? Yes. The FTC’s powers over employment aren’t as clearly defined.
hedora 2y ago
Congress has been working under the assumption that Chevron was the law of the land for decades. That let them produce laws that delegated technical rulemaking to experts with relevant experience. The idea is that the law would be more responsive to changing times, and that it could be simpler, since it wouldn't need to encode obscure technical standards. However, the Supreme Court decided to legislate from the bench and transfer that authority to unelected judges. Now, the federal government is all screwed up because none of the laws work as intended, and, so far, the judges wielding this newfound authority have demonstrated some mixture of incompetence and corruption. I'd like to think they're all taking night school engineering and economics classes to bridge the newly-created skills shortage, but, somehow, I doubt it. For example: In this case, the courts have come to the nonsensical conclusion that (quoting the article) "The FTC, which enforces antitrust laws and regulates competition", doesn't have the authority to regulate non-compete clauses, and further claims there's no evidence that the proposed regulation would do anything beneficial (despite 80+ years of case studies from California, which happens to have the largest economy in the US.)
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  > The idea is that the law would be more responsive to changing times, and that it could be simpler, since it wouldn't need to encode obscure technical standards. No, the idea was to supply more power to unelected officials who are not under the scrutiny of the people. Said unelected officials being bought for by various private interests and ruling in their favor whenever and however possible, regardless of the constitution. > However, the Supreme Court decided… transfer that authority to unelected judges. No they didn’t. The authority went back to where it belonged, the legislative branch. The legislative branch has no power to defer legislation to anyone but themselves. > [The FTC] doesn't have the authority to regulate non-compete clauses They do; in regards to the federal law as it is written, of which there are no laws currently. If they wish to see non-competes die (and I would like for them die) then they have to do it properly: by getting a law made. Not by making a “ruling” which has no legal standing in a post-Chevron world.