3 ms·

My understanding was that Chevron was specifically about the cases where the law was ambiguous, allowing the agencies to come up with reasonable interpretations

by 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.
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    > 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. Chevron deference has little to do with the legislative branch's power to delegate authority (and nothing at all to do with the legislative branch's power to explicitly delegate authority). It was about the judiciary not overturning a "reasonable interpretation" of ambiguities in the law by an agency, under the assumption that any ambiguities are implicit delegations of authority. Overturning Chevron merely means that a judge can decide which of multiple reasonable interpretations of the law most represent Congress' intent, rather than deferring to the reasonable interpretation chosen by the agency. To quote Chevron: > Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  The legality on non-competes is entirely a political question and has nothing to do with expertise. It should be decided by the political branch that writes the laws, which is congress. Whether you like it or not (and I don't like it) non-competes have always been legal. > (quoting the article) "The FTC, which enforces antitrust laws and regulates competition" The issue is that you are quoting an article and not the actual law. There is no law that says the FTC has blanket authority to regulate "competition".
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    It was originally created to enforce antitrust laws and prevent "unfair methods of competition" Here's US code Title 15§45(a); note that the subsequent acts have broadened the FTC purview rather than curtailed it. Later clauses in the subsection limit the FTC's power for foreign commerce, and define "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" but do not define "unfair methods of competition": (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 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.
_heimdall 2y ago
Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule, but in general its safe to assume that any executive agency in the US has been operating under a fairly ambiguous set of rules. Its always up for debate whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but without Chevron much of what the agencies have done for decades wouldn't have been allowed.

by 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.
- aidenn0 2y ago
  > 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. Chevron deference has little to do with the legislative branch's power to delegate authority (and nothing at all to do with the legislative branch's power to explicitly delegate authority). It was about the judiciary not overturning a "reasonable interpretation" of ambiguities in the law by an agency, under the assumption that any ambiguities are implicit delegations of authority. Overturning Chevron merely means that a judge can decide which of multiple reasonable interpretations of the law most represent Congress' intent, rather than deferring to the reasonable interpretation chosen by the agency. To quote Chevron: > Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.
fallingknife 2y ago
The legality on non-competes is entirely a political question and has nothing to do with expertise. It should be decided by the political branch that writes the laws, which is congress. Whether you like it or not (and I don't like it) non-competes have always been legal. > (quoting the article) "The FTC, which enforces antitrust laws and regulates competition" The issue is that you are quoting an article and not the actual law. There is no law that says the FTC has blanket authority to regulate "competition".
- aidenn0 2y ago
  It was originally created to enforce antitrust laws and prevent "unfair methods of competition" Here's US code Title 15§45(a); note that the subsequent acts have broadened the FTC purview rather than curtailed it. Later clauses in the subsection limit the FTC's power for foreign commerce, and define "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" but do not define "unfair methods of competition": (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 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.

_heimdall 2y ago

Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule, but in general its safe to assume that any executive agency in the US has been operating under a fairly ambiguous set of rules. Its always up for debate whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but without Chevron much of what the agencies have done for decades wouldn't have been allowed.