8 ms·

Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

180 points by CrankyBear 2y ago

colechristensen 2y ago
[flagged]
- ActorNightly 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    Having Congress do their duty is not Libertarianism.
- desert_rue 2y ago
  So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?
  - spacephysics 2y ago
    At least with a judge you’d have representation in some form, and have an actual argument for-against it. Agencies will just write whatever they want, enforce it, then after have the legal system involved. At that point the damage is done. Lets try to get closer to laws and rules that have some semblance of representation, even if its not “perfect” yet.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - dangus 2y ago
      Technically the president who handles a lot of agency appointments and guidance is elected somewhat more democratically than the senate, who confirms federal judges. At least the electoral college roughly takes state population into account. The senate just assigns two senators to states with 580,000 people and then does the exact same for states with 38 million people.
      - quartesixte 2y ago
        Senators were designed as senior statesmen representing the interest of State Governments, and as a check against the popularly-elected Representatives in the House so that the smaller states could have a voice. That's why general public couldn't even vote for senators until the 17th amendment in 1913. I wonder from time to time the ramifications of turning Senators into basically super-representatives. I think it's always good to keep in mind that the Founders and Framers really did consider the individual States as semi-autonomous entities bound together in a tight FEDERATION that would cooperate on interstate commerce, mutual defense, and foreign diplomacy. And so, Wyoming, Maine and Rhode Island get just as many senators as New York, Texas, and California because they are just as important to this Union as any other state. Edit: Apparently (but not surprisingly) there is some partisanship surrounding this issue and I want to make clear that 1) I came to this thought via just some first-principles thinking 2) I do sympathize with the motivations behind the 17th and the challenges of reverting to pre-17th (in the same way we really can't go back to pre-12th Amendment style POTUS elections).
        ClumsyPilot 2y ago
        > first-principles thinking What does this mean? There are first principles in maths and physics, what are first principles in, what is this actually, political philosophy? The first principles must be universally agreeable and indisputable, like 1 + 1= 2, what would be an example?
        quartesixte 2y ago
        US Constitutional Law and the very specific field it has created. So, in this case, Articles I, II, and III of the US Constitution + 27 amendments. Which, I concede doesn't fall under a narrow-definition of First Principles thinking but I think the term has been meme'd enough to allow for some play here.
    - Propelloni 2y ago
      Under the rule-of-law, after such a ruling, you can sue the state for damages. If you can show damages you will be made whole, i.e. indemnified. I, for one, am looking forward to companies showing how and how much they were damaged by the ban of non-compete clauses in working contracts. Should be some interesting numbers.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >If you can show damages you will be made whole, i.e. indemnified. You can be made whole to the best extent humanly possible. Which is to say, no. No matter how much money you might win, you can't be made whole for the time and human capital wasted on fending off Executive Branch abuse. The ideal timeline is to stop the abuse before it has taken root, bloomed, and spread its hay fever all over the place.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rules. You can't build anything durable on a system that fragile.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      It's the District Court of Texas, a frequent offender. This was judge shopping, not rule of law.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        [flagged]
        throwup238 2y ago
        You literally just attacked the regulatory agency for going with "whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best." How about evaluating the agency's argument instead of automatically assuming a political appointee from the most politically divisive administration in an era where precedent is being thrown away at record pace on partisan grounds is "correct on the question of law"? "As far as you can tell" I guess.
        lolinder 2y ago
        Sorry, I seem to have miscommunicated: I'm not commenting on the rule, I actually quite like it in principle. I'm commenting on the manner in which the rules are created and their fragility. Laws passed by Congress tend to stick around and can be counted on. I want a law banning noncompetes, not a temporary administrative rule that gets added to the pile of things that could get completely upended with each and every presidential election.
  - colechristensen 2y ago
    Yes I’m fine with the judiciary doing its job. I’m not fine with the executive exceeding their bounds. I’m also not fine with the extremely common regulatory capture of the bureaucrats that have “experts” fall in to cushy jobs if they use their expertise correctly.
  - dangus 2y ago
    With possibly a lifetime appointment, too. IMO the administrative state is a unique little corner of meritocracy in a political system that is full of bad incentives. Congresspeople use donor money to get elected and are incentivized to listen non-constituents with the biggest pocketbooks. The president is elected by the people in similar big money elections with primaries controlled by the political party apparatus. The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, which is not surprising since they’re the ones that made dark money campaign contributions illegal via the citizens united ruling. The administrative state is the only place where people actually get into their position on their merit and suitability for the job alone. Everyone below a certain level isn’t a political appointee, they’re hired off a job board based on their accomplishments and proficiencies like everyone else. There’s no donor money involved, the only reward for your service is a stable salary.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >The president is elected by the people The POTUS is elected by the States. >The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, The judiciary is ultimately confirmed by the Senate, who are voted in by the peoples of each State.
      - ljlolel 2y ago
        Senators used to be appointed by the state too
        dangus 2y ago
        Not by an open jon board like USAJobs.gov. I know someone who did a relatively high profile job in one of the administrative departments. They didn’t know anyone. They just applied online, interviewed, background check, etc - just like a regular job. Their appointment was based on their abilities instead of who they knew, no palm greasing involved.
    - fallingknife 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - monero-xmr 2y ago
    The problem is there is a lack of compromise in the legislature so each side wants quick fixes. Government is slow, so the executive has responded to their voters by trying to assert more power, often a layer removed via regulatory agencies. I would like to see Congress pass more laws, which requires compromise. You can look at the federal government over decades, things don't happen over months or a few years, things are slow. If the issue surfaces over a few voting cycles then some things will pass, often as riders on big must-pass bills, or giant omnibus bills like the Inflation Reduct Act which had all manner of things attached to it. In general I don't want singular agencies making economy-wide changes, nor the executive to do things by fiat. I agree with banning non-competes in principle but if you let such massive economic changes pass that way, then get prepared for all manner of things you disagree with passing the same way. It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office.
    - dangus 2y ago
      > It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office Actually, the left isn’t inconsistent in the way you are saying. They bemoaned Trump’s efforts to undermine the independence and meritocracy the administrative state. They don’t want anyone to turn the administrative state into an executive power center. For example, the left complained when the trump admin tried to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with political appointees. The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. The left views the administrative state as an additional check on certain areas where our three branches fall short on managing a complex array of the day to day operation of the country. By “left” I do mean the neoliberal left, not “communists who don’t shower much” left, because that’s how far right we are these days. The Republican Party used to believe in the administrative state and still mostly does outside of MAGA-world.
      - mgh95 2y ago
        > The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. Yes, and many people don't want the administrative state to exist as a quasi-fourth branch. As someone who now runs a business with multiple lines of business in heavily regulated areas, you basically have three problems. First, what does the regulator think the law says. Second, what administrative actions has a regulator occupying the position previously done. Third, what does the law actually say. The administrative state has very real issues between the first and second points. In particular, the ability for an executive to do things like "imply" greater investigative actions may be taken for engaging in certain lines of business effectively means that laws can be selectively reinterpreted to achieve political aims. An obvious example of this is Operation Choke Point from the Obama presidency. To this day, it makes obtaining MSB bank accounts for handling things as simple as payroll quite difficult. The administrative state is a very real issue for a nation governed by laws.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >in the matter of law? The question is a matter of law. If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power. That the specific consequence is enforcement of non-competes is ultimately irrelevant.
    - techsupporter 2y ago
      > If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Arguably (and since I'm making it, I'll say I'm in favor of this argument), the Constitution would preclude overly strict laws because the Executive is a co-equal branch of government. > Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power. Why not? Congress has the authority to pass the laws it sees fit. Why is it suddenly a problem that Congress passed a law that says "the agency known as the Federal Trade Commission is established and the President, through a set of commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall ensure that the these list of goals are accomplished and shall establish such rules as the Commission deems appropriate." We aren't a parliamentary system. The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money. What's changed in recent years is the judiciary has come along and decided that a hundred years of Congress writing laws with bullet-point goals and the President acting under those laws is no longer relevant because "Congress didn't write enough words." That's not how textualism works.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Nothing in the Constitution requires vague laws either. In the interests of curbing inevitable abuse of executive power, laws should only be as vague as absolutely required. In the interests of wider public comprehension, laws should be as precise as absolutely possible. If a law is so vague that there are questions if the executive is overstepping its authority, it's the duty of the judiciary to stop that and of the legislature to rewrite the law more precisely. >The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money. And the Judicial Branch has the power to interpret the law, judge the Constitutionality of the law, and check the powers of the Legislature and the Executive. The judiciary is doing its duty here. Put aside your personal biases and desires, because none of that matters here. Banning non-competes should be enacted by Congress and then executed by the White House withstanding challenges in the Courts. The Executive Branch does not have the power to interpret the law. Incidentally, the Executive Branch does not have the power to spend money either; it must spend money according exactly to budgets passed by Congress.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Uehreka 2y ago
  You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on. Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.
  - kfrzcode 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - lukev 2y ago
      Unless it’s bloat in the military or corporate welfare , or big-brothering what people do with their bodies.
    - Cody-99 2y ago
      You think basic labor regulations is bloat and big brother? Can't tell if you are trolling or not haha.
    - panja 2y ago
      No Republicans are not doing this for small government, they're doing it because democrats did it
    - plagiarist 2y ago
      That statement doesn't really have a lot of credibility when "States' Rights" is what Republicans turn to only after they fail to legislate something at a federal level.
    - Uehreka 2y ago
      If you don’t want the government to prevent noncompetes, then they’re going to happen. Workers lack the collective bargaining abilities to force employers to do away with them.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
- nateglims 2y ago
  Congress grants authority for rule making by various legislation. The question of if they have the authority is on the interpretation that legislation. Too much may be pushed into executive orders and rule making but the highly politicized court of the northern district of Texas is also not the answer. The federal judiciary is also appointed by the executive and is increasingly partisan.
  - dantheman 2y ago
    The answer is the court rules that the FTC overstepped it's power. It's now back to congress to grant that power if that's truly what they wanted, or hell they could have written a better law in the past. Sloppy legislation should not be encouraged.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41305591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41305591
staplung 2y ago
[flagged]
- xmprt 2y ago
  If we remove all the double negatives it becomes "Judge keep FTC enforcing non-compete agreements" or "Judge stops FTC from enforcing compete agreements" neither of which make sense. The FTC doesn't enforce non-competes and there is no such thing as a "compete" agreement. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting the fix is here.
  - codetrotter 2y ago
    More readable title: Judge Blocks FTC's Non-Compete Ban, Citing Overreach and Potential Harm to Businesses
    - febusravenga 2y ago
      Thanks from non native English reader that now understands what's going on :).
    - greiskul 2y ago
      > Citing Overreach and Potential Harm to Businesses Potential harm to business, oh no. Might as well repeal the 13th amendment while we are at it. Imagine how much more competitive American companies would be if they didn't have to pay for silly stuff like salaries.
hansvm 2y ago
I haven't yet seen an argument for non-competes that applied to non C-suites and wasn't already heavily covered by IP law. Is the problem at hand anything more than a cash grab from abusive employers? Back to the chevron thing though, how many of you have ever gotten a parking ticket? Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable to drive. Driving is a privilege, and the state will no longer grant that privilege to you. Is that decision fair? You already went through the court system (or otherwise paid it off (implicitly, often explicitly, pleading guilty)), a judge took the time to judge your misdeeds, and you had some penalty applied, perhaps the max allowed by the law. Now though, some part of the executive branch wants to ignore any judicial action and assert their opinions. Even before this ludicrous supreme court case, that was a thing that happened. A whole office in Minnesota is dedicated to extra-judicial traffic rulings above and beyond what the judge thought was reasonable. I think it's wrong. Empower somebody like the FAA to make fast decisions when there are actually lives at stake, but everything else which could reasonably be judged one way or the other should go through somebody capable of judging it (maybe...a judge). Even FAA rulings probably ought to be vetted once they're less time sensitive.
- arcticbull 2y ago
  > Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable to drive. Driving is a privilege, and the state will no longer grant that privilege to you. Ex post facto laws are generally unconstitutional. Generally -- especially as it imposes a new punishment after you've already been punished. Something like this would almost certainly be implemented as "X driving infractions committed on or after [date law is effective]." [edit] in administrative law, retroactive application is only permitted when congress has explicitly given retroactive power to an agency.
  - olliej 2y ago
    This is not an ex post facto law - the question is purely "are the terms of your contract enforceable?". For example I can make a contract that has a term "all people of gender/race/age X must be paid no more that 50% of the amount paid to people of gender/race/age Y", but if I were to then sue a person that agreed to this contract they would immediately be able to say "that term is not enforceable". The FTC ruling on non-competes is no different - no one is saying "a non-compete clause breaks the law in a way that would allow criminal or civil suits", they are saying "this clause is not enforceable" (plenty of standard contract terms are not enforceable depending on state and/or country, and the unenforceable nature of the term does not - for better or worse - invalidate the entire contract).
roschdal 2y ago
[flagged]
ricudis 2y ago
The title deserves an award for the most use of negatives.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  That’s how I felt about net neutrality reporting It was unclear which one let the internet traffic be treated equally, depending on the publication or the phase of its existence
- minkles 2y ago
  If someone does a convert this headline to a mathematical proof tool I'll die happy.
ActorNightly 2y ago
[flagged]
advael 2y ago
I really think federal authorities should start ignoring rulings from Texan judges. The amount of corporate bankruptcy venue shopping alone should tell us the appointment process has corrupted the supposedly impartial nature of the judiciary there
- ellisv 2y ago
  It would be better if they put pressure on the Senate to act.
  - advael 2y ago
    I agree, but the fact that a judge in Texas has the power to harm workers throughout the country while we wait for the government to act is a problem, and there's an asymmetry in how quickly a single judge can make a decision versus the entire apparatus of the federal government
- kjksf 2y ago
  Dear god. Do you understand what you're advocating for? You're advocating for literal lawlessness. For anarchy. For giving the government absolute power. Given that government abuses non-absolute power you can bet that when they get absolute power it'll take about a second to turn any country into Putin's Russia.
  - advael 2y ago
    And you're saying that other states affected by these decisions should have no recourse for judicial activism that happens in some gerrymandered area that happened to get a judge appointed. The alternative to that isn't lawlessness, it's mitigating a vulnerability in the separation of powers, and I think our eye should be toward patching that vulnerability. We live in a very different world than the one in which this system was designed
  - ohashi 2y ago
    Pretty sure that judge's party already is trying to turn the country into Putin's Russia.
Laaas 2y ago
FTC can not make laws. It does not matter how much you want this to be law. It must be passed by Congress. Even then, it wouldn’t hold in intrastate cases since the Commerce clause doesn’t provide for that.
- hyeonwho4 2y ago
  There is a law, and it gives FTC broad authority to regulate unfair and deceptive practices in most "commerce", with carveouts for a few industries like airlines, packers and shippers, and finance/banking.
  - Laaas 2y ago
    I assume you mean the FTC Act. Indeed it gives broad authority, but it isn’t unlimited. FTC says “[..] it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of section 5” in their rule. Indeed, the act gives them the ability to regulate unfair practices, but it’s not clear that this is unfair. Is it unfair if I get paid a good salary in return for not working for competitors? If they pay me for the years I can’t work after resigning, I would very much say no. If they don’t pay me for those years, I would say it could be seen as being unfair. But the rule is a blanket ban on all noncompetes essentially, even for senior executives! (Unless I’m reading it wrong.) I’m for banning noncompetes, but I don’t think you can reasonably argue that the FTC has this ability. I do think they could ban the subset that are clearly unfair without any issues FWIW, and I do hope they switch to this direction.
amarant 2y ago
I've heard it said that the main difference between being employed and being enslaved is that you can choose your master when you're employed. It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..
- lionkor 2y ago
  In other first world countries it's certainly different. In Germany everyone gets paid time off, which is separate from paid sick time (there is usually no hard limit, but some fair use policy applies in some jobs). I can't be fired for random reasons on the spot - if I get fired for random reasons, they still have to pay me for a 1-3 month period that I work while I look for a new job. Firing on the spot is only legal in exceptional circumstances, e.g. when they can prove you simply didnt work your hours, or something (outside of paid and u paid leave, paid and unpaid sick leave). We also get maternal and paternal leave which is very nice. Overtime, health insurance, etc. are also dictated to some degree by law in a lot of countries. The fact that you (Americans) feel enslaved is because you choose to elect a government that doesn't care about any of that.
  - linotype 2y ago
    No, six to ten states (mostly small, red states with shitty economies) that aren’t aligned with the majority of Americans elect the President and inflict their misery on the rest of us. Believe me, most people in states that matter want universal healthcare (which we already almost have, just in the most convoluted and corporate-fleece way possible), vacation and sick leave.
    - flanked-evergl 2y ago
      > Believe me, most people in states that matter want universal healthcare (which we already almost have, just in the most convoluted and corporate-fleece way possible), vacation and sick leave. In a federal system, as the US is, these are all things you can implement on the state level. You do not need to win at a national level to implement it.
  - 2y ago
foobarkey 2y ago
In Europe if you want to force a non-compete you need to pay full salary for the duration, so if someone enforced non compete for 5 years I could sit home and play games while earning salary
- theshrike79 2y ago
  AFAIK this is only valid if the non-compete effectively prevents you from working in your profession. Which is most of the time, granted.
  - brightball 2y ago
    I was told by an attorney years ago that non-competes were only enforceable if they had a reasonably defined scope and specifically were unenforceable in Right to Work states if it effectively prevented you from working at all. Reasonable scope was something like max 2 years, specific distance from current office that wasn’t excessive (couple of miles) or had specifics about taking existing customers.
    - theshrike79 2y ago
      Yea, the previous employer needs to prove that your knowledge of their internals will harm them financially. And you, of course, need to not be an ass and start poaching clients with insider information =)
    - matwood 2y ago
      Same. The biggest issue with non-competes is the intimidation factor. People are scared to challenge them even though without proper compensation and scope they are basically worthless. Few if any judges will prevent someone from making a living. I also think they are mostly fine in the cases where they are properly constructed (compensation and scope).
- LunaSea 2y ago
  This is incorrect. Non-competes do mandate that there should be a compensation for the worker but not the value of said compensation.
fergie 2y ago
But non-competes are still illegal i California?
DoneWithAllThat 2y ago
This article is mostly lifted from a linked articles and is a dupe of yet another article and somehow none of the three saw fit to link to the ruling. Mostly all three are caterwauling about impact without addressing the ruling on its merits which combined with the reluctance to link to the ruling makes me wonder if maybe the legal analysis in it is more compelling than they’d like to admit.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  Got a link?
sylware 2y ago
Lol, as far as I know, in my country non-compete agreements, without a serious amount of money involved to pay the worker until the agreement hold, are kind of illegal. Actually, it may be bluntly illegal for good now.
TrackerFF 2y ago
Question from an outsider: Why is that 95% of the times I see something get stopped or overturned, it is from a court / judge in Texas?
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Reflects the bias of your news reading. Federal courts mirror the politics of their location. Naturally this leads to circuit splits.
  - ahiknsr 2y ago
    > Reflects the bias of your news reading. Right, it only reflects the bias of what news we read and has nothing to do with reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Albright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Albright > Alan D Albright[1][a] (born November 24, 1959)[2] is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. He was formerly a United States magistrate judge of the same court. Albright oversees a significant portion of patent litigation within the United States. In 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit repeatedly rebuked him in a string of opinions for failing to transfer cases to more apt jurisdictions. A quarter of all patent lawsuits in the US were once heard by Albright, who has been widely criticized for ignoring binding case law. However, following a docket-stripping order issued by Chief Judge Orlando Garcia, Albright's patent docket has declined precipitously
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Patent issues are a case of circuit shopping, not differences in plain text interpretation of sovereign power cases.
- Micanthus 2y ago
  A couple reasons: 1) Recency bias, you probably remember more of these cases from Texas right now because that's the subject of this article. 2) The district and appelate courts in the US vary widely in their judicial ideologies, and usually align closely with their local political leanings. In today's political landscape with a democratic administration, it's unsurprising that courts in conservative districts frequently rule against federal agencies. Notably this judge was appointed by Trump, and is citing recent rulings and legal theory from the current radically conservative Supreme Court. Judges in liberal areas are still under some obligation to take precedent into account, so the case may have gone the same way even with a liberal judge, now that the Chevron Doctrine is more or less dead due to the Supreme Court. But liberal judges still often diverge from the legal theory conservative supreme court justices are using today. 3) Judge shopping, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping#United_States ) the case was intentionally filed in a district that is known for conservative judges that are friendly to corporations, were appointed by Trump, and align closely to the supreme court's legal ideology. The Northern District of Texas were this case was decided is a common choice for such shopping, especially because they explicitly ignore policy guidelines (that are sadly nonbinding) to prevent judge shopping.
stuaxo 2y ago
A Trump appointed judge in Dallas no less.
tzs 2y ago
> You might think these things are only a pain for people like me who work in the tech and creative space. You’d be wrong. Employees also locked into their jobs include hairdressers, janitors, security guards, and fast-food workers. Who knew that the ability to say, “Would you like fries with that?” was proprietary? Not me. The Judge says they can't enforce their new ban. But does that stop them from trying to stop non-competes using prior law? For example the Sherman Act can cover non-competes. If the FTC started suing hair salons and fast food restaurants under that it might cause enough problems for those businesses that they'd stop using such agreements.
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  > But does that stop them from trying to stop non-competes using prior law? It's not a judge's job to do that. The plaintiff will have to make the case.
- willcipriano 2y ago
  Most non competes are signed on your first day of work after you quit your previous job (under duress) and provide no consideration. Basic contract law should have thrown these out long ago.
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    In my experience, "non competes" form part of an employment contract, as a clause of the employment contract, and are not an entirely separate contract. In contract law, the requirement for consideration applies to the contract as a whole, not to each individual clause. An employment contract, as a whole, definitionally provides consideration. Can you give some examples where "non competes" are signed independently of your employment contracts without consideration? The quoted article refers to them as clauses, and the FTC rule in question is also titled the "Non-Compete Clause Rule" [1]. [1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/07/2024-09171/non-compete-clause-rule https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/07/2024-09...
    - willcipriano 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
josefritzishere 2y ago
Non-competes are most often an abuse of power. There's no legal basis for their existence without due compensation. The FTC change made proper allowances for executives and IP. I think the Texas court ruling is deeply and perhaps criminally flawed.

180 points by CrankyBear 2y ago

colechristensen 2y ago

[flagged]

ActorNightly 2y ago
[flagged]
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  Having Congress do their duty is not Libertarianism.
desert_rue 2y ago
So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?
- spacephysics 2y ago
  At least with a judge you’d have representation in some form, and have an actual argument for-against it. Agencies will just write whatever they want, enforce it, then after have the legal system involved. At that point the damage is done. Lets try to get closer to laws and rules that have some semblance of representation, even if its not “perfect” yet.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dangus 2y ago
    Technically the president who handles a lot of agency appointments and guidance is elected somewhat more democratically than the senate, who confirms federal judges. At least the electoral college roughly takes state population into account. The senate just assigns two senators to states with 580,000 people and then does the exact same for states with 38 million people.
    - quartesixte 2y ago
      Senators were designed as senior statesmen representing the interest of State Governments, and as a check against the popularly-elected Representatives in the House so that the smaller states could have a voice. That's why general public couldn't even vote for senators until the 17th amendment in 1913. I wonder from time to time the ramifications of turning Senators into basically super-representatives. I think it's always good to keep in mind that the Founders and Framers really did consider the individual States as semi-autonomous entities bound together in a tight FEDERATION that would cooperate on interstate commerce, mutual defense, and foreign diplomacy. And so, Wyoming, Maine and Rhode Island get just as many senators as New York, Texas, and California because they are just as important to this Union as any other state. Edit: Apparently (but not surprisingly) there is some partisanship surrounding this issue and I want to make clear that 1) I came to this thought via just some first-principles thinking 2) I do sympathize with the motivations behind the 17th and the challenges of reverting to pre-17th (in the same way we really can't go back to pre-12th Amendment style POTUS elections).
      - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
        > first-principles thinking What does this mean? There are first principles in maths and physics, what are first principles in, what is this actually, political philosophy? The first principles must be universally agreeable and indisputable, like 1 + 1= 2, what would be an example?
        quartesixte 2y ago
        US Constitutional Law and the very specific field it has created. So, in this case, Articles I, II, and III of the US Constitution + 27 amendments. Which, I concede doesn't fall under a narrow-definition of First Principles thinking but I think the term has been meme'd enough to allow for some play here.
  - Propelloni 2y ago
    Under the rule-of-law, after such a ruling, you can sue the state for damages. If you can show damages you will be made whole, i.e. indemnified. I, for one, am looking forward to companies showing how and how much they were damaged by the ban of non-compete clauses in working contracts. Should be some interesting numbers.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >If you can show damages you will be made whole, i.e. indemnified. You can be made whole to the best extent humanly possible. Which is to say, no. No matter how much money you might win, you can't be made whole for the time and human capital wasted on fending off Executive Branch abuse. The ideal timeline is to stop the abuse before it has taken root, bloomed, and spread its hay fever all over the place.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rules. You can't build anything durable on a system that fragile.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    It's the District Court of Texas, a frequent offender. This was judge shopping, not rule of law.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - throwup238 2y ago
        You literally just attacked the regulatory agency for going with "whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best." How about evaluating the agency's argument instead of automatically assuming a political appointee from the most politically divisive administration in an era where precedent is being thrown away at record pace on partisan grounds is "correct on the question of law"? "As far as you can tell" I guess.
        lolinder 2y ago
        Sorry, I seem to have miscommunicated: I'm not commenting on the rule, I actually quite like it in principle. I'm commenting on the manner in which the rules are created and their fragility. Laws passed by Congress tend to stick around and can be counted on. I want a law banning noncompetes, not a temporary administrative rule that gets added to the pile of things that could get completely upended with each and every presidential election.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  Yes I’m fine with the judiciary doing its job. I’m not fine with the executive exceeding their bounds. I’m also not fine with the extremely common regulatory capture of the bureaucrats that have “experts” fall in to cushy jobs if they use their expertise correctly.
- dangus 2y ago
  With possibly a lifetime appointment, too. IMO the administrative state is a unique little corner of meritocracy in a political system that is full of bad incentives. Congresspeople use donor money to get elected and are incentivized to listen non-constituents with the biggest pocketbooks. The president is elected by the people in similar big money elections with primaries controlled by the political party apparatus. The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, which is not surprising since they’re the ones that made dark money campaign contributions illegal via the citizens united ruling. The administrative state is the only place where people actually get into their position on their merit and suitability for the job alone. Everyone below a certain level isn’t a political appointee, they’re hired off a job board based on their accomplishments and proficiencies like everyone else. There’s no donor money involved, the only reward for your service is a stable salary.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >The president is elected by the people The POTUS is elected by the States. >The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, The judiciary is ultimately confirmed by the Senate, who are voted in by the peoples of each State.
    - ljlolel 2y ago
      Senators used to be appointed by the state too
      - dangus 2y ago
        Not by an open jon board like USAJobs.gov. I know someone who did a relatively high profile job in one of the administrative departments. They didn’t know anyone. They just applied online, interviewed, background check, etc - just like a regular job. Their appointment was based on their abilities instead of who they knew, no palm greasing involved.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    [flagged]
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  The problem is there is a lack of compromise in the legislature so each side wants quick fixes. Government is slow, so the executive has responded to their voters by trying to assert more power, often a layer removed via regulatory agencies. I would like to see Congress pass more laws, which requires compromise. You can look at the federal government over decades, things don't happen over months or a few years, things are slow. If the issue surfaces over a few voting cycles then some things will pass, often as riders on big must-pass bills, or giant omnibus bills like the Inflation Reduct Act which had all manner of things attached to it. In general I don't want singular agencies making economy-wide changes, nor the executive to do things by fiat. I agree with banning non-competes in principle but if you let such massive economic changes pass that way, then get prepared for all manner of things you disagree with passing the same way. It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office.
  - dangus 2y ago
    > It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office Actually, the left isn’t inconsistent in the way you are saying. They bemoaned Trump’s efforts to undermine the independence and meritocracy the administrative state. They don’t want anyone to turn the administrative state into an executive power center. For example, the left complained when the trump admin tried to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with political appointees. The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. The left views the administrative state as an additional check on certain areas where our three branches fall short on managing a complex array of the day to day operation of the country. By “left” I do mean the neoliberal left, not “communists who don’t shower much” left, because that’s how far right we are these days. The Republican Party used to believe in the administrative state and still mostly does outside of MAGA-world.
    - mgh95 2y ago
      > The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. Yes, and many people don't want the administrative state to exist as a quasi-fourth branch. As someone who now runs a business with multiple lines of business in heavily regulated areas, you basically have three problems. First, what does the regulator think the law says. Second, what administrative actions has a regulator occupying the position previously done. Third, what does the law actually say. The administrative state has very real issues between the first and second points. In particular, the ability for an executive to do things like "imply" greater investigative actions may be taken for engaging in certain lines of business effectively means that laws can be selectively reinterpreted to achieve political aims. An obvious example of this is Operation Choke Point from the Obama presidency. To this day, it makes obtaining MSB bank accounts for handling things as simple as payroll quite difficult. The administrative state is a very real issue for a nation governed by laws.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >in the matter of law? The question is a matter of law. If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power. That the specific consequence is enforcement of non-competes is ultimately irrelevant.
  - techsupporter 2y ago
    > If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Arguably (and since I'm making it, I'll say I'm in favor of this argument), the Constitution would preclude overly strict laws because the Executive is a co-equal branch of government. > Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power. Why not? Congress has the authority to pass the laws it sees fit. Why is it suddenly a problem that Congress passed a law that says "the agency known as the Federal Trade Commission is established and the President, through a set of commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall ensure that the these list of goals are accomplished and shall establish such rules as the Commission deems appropriate." We aren't a parliamentary system. The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money. What's changed in recent years is the judiciary has come along and decided that a hundred years of Congress writing laws with bullet-point goals and the President acting under those laws is no longer relevant because "Congress didn't write enough words." That's not how textualism works.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Nothing in the Constitution requires vague laws either. In the interests of curbing inevitable abuse of executive power, laws should only be as vague as absolutely required. In the interests of wider public comprehension, laws should be as precise as absolutely possible. If a law is so vague that there are questions if the executive is overstepping its authority, it's the duty of the judiciary to stop that and of the legislature to rewrite the law more precisely. >The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money. And the Judicial Branch has the power to interpret the law, judge the Constitutionality of the law, and check the powers of the Legislature and the Executive. The judiciary is doing its duty here. Put aside your personal biases and desires, because none of that matters here. Banning non-competes should be enacted by Congress and then executed by the White House withstanding challenges in the Courts. The Executive Branch does not have the power to interpret the law. Incidentally, the Executive Branch does not have the power to spend money either; it must spend money according exactly to budgets passed by Congress.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Uehreka 2y ago
You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on. Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.
- kfrzcode 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lukev 2y ago
    Unless it’s bloat in the military or corporate welfare , or big-brothering what people do with their bodies.
  - Cody-99 2y ago
    You think basic labor regulations is bloat and big brother? Can't tell if you are trolling or not haha.
  - panja 2y ago
    No Republicans are not doing this for small government, they're doing it because democrats did it
  - plagiarist 2y ago
    That statement doesn't really have a lot of credibility when "States' Rights" is what Republicans turn to only after they fail to legislate something at a federal level.
  - Uehreka 2y ago
    If you don’t want the government to prevent noncompetes, then they’re going to happen. Workers lack the collective bargaining abilities to force employers to do away with them.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
nateglims 2y ago
Congress grants authority for rule making by various legislation. The question of if they have the authority is on the interpretation that legislation. Too much may be pushed into executive orders and rule making but the highly politicized court of the northern district of Texas is also not the answer. The federal judiciary is also appointed by the executive and is increasingly partisan.
- dantheman 2y ago
  The answer is the court rules that the FTC overstepped it's power. It's now back to congress to grant that power if that's truly what they wanted, or hell they could have written a better law in the past. Sloppy legislation should not be encouraged.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41305591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41305591

staplung 2y ago

[flagged]

xmprt 2y ago
If we remove all the double negatives it becomes "Judge keep FTC enforcing non-compete agreements" or "Judge stops FTC from enforcing compete agreements" neither of which make sense. The FTC doesn't enforce non-competes and there is no such thing as a "compete" agreement. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting the fix is here.
- codetrotter 2y ago
  More readable title: Judge Blocks FTC's Non-Compete Ban, Citing Overreach and Potential Harm to Businesses
  - febusravenga 2y ago
    Thanks from non native English reader that now understands what's going on :).
  - greiskul 2y ago
    > Citing Overreach and Potential Harm to Businesses Potential harm to business, oh no. Might as well repeal the 13th amendment while we are at it. Imagine how much more competitive American companies would be if they didn't have to pay for silly stuff like salaries.

hansvm 2y ago

I haven't yet seen an argument for non-competes that applied to non C-suites and wasn't already heavily covered by IP law. Is the problem at hand anything more than a cash grab from abusive employers? Back to the chevron thing though, how many of you have ever gotten a parking ticket? Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable to drive. Driving is a privilege, and the state will no longer grant that privilege to you. Is that decision fair? You already went through the court system (or otherwise paid it off (implicitly, often explicitly, pleading guilty)), a judge took the time to judge your misdeeds, and you had some penalty applied, perhaps the max allowed by the law. Now though, some part of the executive branch wants to ignore any judicial action and assert their opinions. Even before this ludicrous supreme court case, that was a thing that happened. A whole office in Minnesota is dedicated to extra-judicial traffic rulings above and beyond what the judge thought was reasonable. I think it's wrong. Empower somebody like the FAA to make fast decisions when there are actually lives at stake, but everything else which could reasonably be judged one way or the other should go through somebody capable of judging it (maybe...a judge). Even FAA rulings probably ought to be vetted once they're less time sensitive.

arcticbull 2y ago
> Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable to drive. Driving is a privilege, and the state will no longer grant that privilege to you. Ex post facto laws are generally unconstitutional. Generally -- especially as it imposes a new punishment after you've already been punished. Something like this would almost certainly be implemented as "X driving infractions committed on or after [date law is effective]." [edit] in administrative law, retroactive application is only permitted when congress has explicitly given retroactive power to an agency.
- olliej 2y ago
  This is not an ex post facto law - the question is purely "are the terms of your contract enforceable?". For example I can make a contract that has a term "all people of gender/race/age X must be paid no more that 50% of the amount paid to people of gender/race/age Y", but if I were to then sue a person that agreed to this contract they would immediately be able to say "that term is not enforceable". The FTC ruling on non-competes is no different - no one is saying "a non-compete clause breaks the law in a way that would allow criminal or civil suits", they are saying "this clause is not enforceable" (plenty of standard contract terms are not enforceable depending on state and/or country, and the unenforceable nature of the term does not - for better or worse - invalidate the entire contract).

roschdal 2y ago

[flagged]

ricudis 2y ago

The title deserves an award for the most use of negatives.

yieldcrv 2y ago
That’s how I felt about net neutrality reporting It was unclear which one let the internet traffic be treated equally, depending on the publication or the phase of its existence
minkles 2y ago
If someone does a convert this headline to a mathematical proof tool I'll die happy.

ActorNightly 2y ago

[flagged]

advael 2y ago

I really think federal authorities should start ignoring rulings from Texan judges. The amount of corporate bankruptcy venue shopping alone should tell us the appointment process has corrupted the supposedly impartial nature of the judiciary there

ellisv 2y ago
It would be better if they put pressure on the Senate to act.
- advael 2y ago
  I agree, but the fact that a judge in Texas has the power to harm workers throughout the country while we wait for the government to act is a problem, and there's an asymmetry in how quickly a single judge can make a decision versus the entire apparatus of the federal government
kjksf 2y ago
Dear god. Do you understand what you're advocating for? You're advocating for literal lawlessness. For anarchy. For giving the government absolute power. Given that government abuses non-absolute power you can bet that when they get absolute power it'll take about a second to turn any country into Putin's Russia.
- advael 2y ago
  And you're saying that other states affected by these decisions should have no recourse for judicial activism that happens in some gerrymandered area that happened to get a judge appointed. The alternative to that isn't lawlessness, it's mitigating a vulnerability in the separation of powers, and I think our eye should be toward patching that vulnerability. We live in a very different world than the one in which this system was designed
- ohashi 2y ago
  Pretty sure that judge's party already is trying to turn the country into Putin's Russia.

Laaas 2y ago

FTC can not make laws. It does not matter how much you want this to be law. It must be passed by Congress. Even then, it wouldn’t hold in intrastate cases since the Commerce clause doesn’t provide for that.

hyeonwho4 2y ago
There is a law, and it gives FTC broad authority to regulate unfair and deceptive practices in most "commerce", with carveouts for a few industries like airlines, packers and shippers, and finance/banking.
- Laaas 2y ago
  I assume you mean the FTC Act. Indeed it gives broad authority, but it isn’t unlimited. FTC says “[..] it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of section 5” in their rule. Indeed, the act gives them the ability to regulate unfair practices, but it’s not clear that this is unfair. Is it unfair if I get paid a good salary in return for not working for competitors? If they pay me for the years I can’t work after resigning, I would very much say no. If they don’t pay me for those years, I would say it could be seen as being unfair. But the rule is a blanket ban on all noncompetes essentially, even for senior executives! (Unless I’m reading it wrong.) I’m for banning noncompetes, but I don’t think you can reasonably argue that the FTC has this ability. I do think they could ban the subset that are clearly unfair without any issues FWIW, and I do hope they switch to this direction.

amarant 2y ago

I've heard it said that the main difference between being employed and being enslaved is that you can choose your master when you're employed. It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..

lionkor 2y ago
In other first world countries it's certainly different. In Germany everyone gets paid time off, which is separate from paid sick time (there is usually no hard limit, but some fair use policy applies in some jobs). I can't be fired for random reasons on the spot - if I get fired for random reasons, they still have to pay me for a 1-3 month period that I work while I look for a new job. Firing on the spot is only legal in exceptional circumstances, e.g. when they can prove you simply didnt work your hours, or something (outside of paid and u paid leave, paid and unpaid sick leave). We also get maternal and paternal leave which is very nice. Overtime, health insurance, etc. are also dictated to some degree by law in a lot of countries. The fact that you (Americans) feel enslaved is because you choose to elect a government that doesn't care about any of that.
- linotype 2y ago
  No, six to ten states (mostly small, red states with shitty economies) that aren’t aligned with the majority of Americans elect the President and inflict their misery on the rest of us. Believe me, most people in states that matter want universal healthcare (which we already almost have, just in the most convoluted and corporate-fleece way possible), vacation and sick leave.
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    > Believe me, most people in states that matter want universal healthcare (which we already almost have, just in the most convoluted and corporate-fleece way possible), vacation and sick leave. In a federal system, as the US is, these are all things you can implement on the state level. You do not need to win at a national level to implement it.
- 2y ago

foobarkey 2y ago

In Europe if you want to force a non-compete you need to pay full salary for the duration, so if someone enforced non compete for 5 years I could sit home and play games while earning salary

theshrike79 2y ago
AFAIK this is only valid if the non-compete effectively prevents you from working in your profession. Which is most of the time, granted.
- brightball 2y ago
  I was told by an attorney years ago that non-competes were only enforceable if they had a reasonably defined scope and specifically were unenforceable in Right to Work states if it effectively prevented you from working at all. Reasonable scope was something like max 2 years, specific distance from current office that wasn’t excessive (couple of miles) or had specifics about taking existing customers.
  - theshrike79 2y ago
    Yea, the previous employer needs to prove that your knowledge of their internals will harm them financially. And you, of course, need to not be an ass and start poaching clients with insider information =)
  - matwood 2y ago
    Same. The biggest issue with non-competes is the intimidation factor. People are scared to challenge them even though without proper compensation and scope they are basically worthless. Few if any judges will prevent someone from making a living. I also think they are mostly fine in the cases where they are properly constructed (compensation and scope).
LunaSea 2y ago
This is incorrect. Non-competes do mandate that there should be a compensation for the worker but not the value of said compensation.

fergie 2y ago

But non-competes are still illegal i California?

DoneWithAllThat 2y ago

This article is mostly lifted from a linked articles and is a dupe of yet another article and somehow none of the three saw fit to link to the ruling. Mostly all three are caterwauling about impact without addressing the ruling on its merits which combined with the reluctance to link to the ruling makes me wonder if maybe the legal analysis in it is more compelling than they’d like to admit.

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
Got a link?

sylware 2y ago

Lol, as far as I know, in my country non-compete agreements, without a serious amount of money involved to pay the worker until the agreement hold, are kind of illegal. Actually, it may be bluntly illegal for good now.

TrackerFF 2y ago

Question from an outsider: Why is that 95% of the times I see something get stopped or overturned, it is from a court / judge in Texas?

throwaway48476 2y ago
Reflects the bias of your news reading. Federal courts mirror the politics of their location. Naturally this leads to circuit splits.
- ahiknsr 2y ago
  > Reflects the bias of your news reading. Right, it only reflects the bias of what news we read and has nothing to do with reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Albright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Albright > Alan D Albright[1][a] (born November 24, 1959)[2] is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. He was formerly a United States magistrate judge of the same court. Albright oversees a significant portion of patent litigation within the United States. In 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit repeatedly rebuked him in a string of opinions for failing to transfer cases to more apt jurisdictions. A quarter of all patent lawsuits in the US were once heard by Albright, who has been widely criticized for ignoring binding case law. However, following a docket-stripping order issued by Chief Judge Orlando Garcia, Albright's patent docket has declined precipitously
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Patent issues are a case of circuit shopping, not differences in plain text interpretation of sovereign power cases.
Micanthus 2y ago
A couple reasons: 1) Recency bias, you probably remember more of these cases from Texas right now because that's the subject of this article. 2) The district and appelate courts in the US vary widely in their judicial ideologies, and usually align closely with their local political leanings. In today's political landscape with a democratic administration, it's unsurprising that courts in conservative districts frequently rule against federal agencies. Notably this judge was appointed by Trump, and is citing recent rulings and legal theory from the current radically conservative Supreme Court. Judges in liberal areas are still under some obligation to take precedent into account, so the case may have gone the same way even with a liberal judge, now that the Chevron Doctrine is more or less dead due to the Supreme Court. But liberal judges still often diverge from the legal theory conservative supreme court justices are using today. 3) Judge shopping, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping#United_States ) the case was intentionally filed in a district that is known for conservative judges that are friendly to corporations, were appointed by Trump, and align closely to the supreme court's legal ideology. The Northern District of Texas were this case was decided is a common choice for such shopping, especially because they explicitly ignore policy guidelines (that are sadly nonbinding) to prevent judge shopping.

stuaxo 2y ago

A Trump appointed judge in Dallas no less.

tzs 2y ago

> You might think these things are only a pain for people like me who work in the tech and creative space. You’d be wrong. Employees also locked into their jobs include hairdressers, janitors, security guards, and fast-food workers. Who knew that the ability to say, “Would you like fries with that?” was proprietary? Not me. The Judge says they can't enforce their new ban. But does that stop them from trying to stop non-competes using prior law? For example the Sherman Act can cover non-competes. If the FTC started suing hair salons and fast food restaurants under that it might cause enough problems for those businesses that they'd stop using such agreements.

flanked-evergl 2y ago
> But does that stop them from trying to stop non-competes using prior law? It's not a judge's job to do that. The plaintiff will have to make the case.
willcipriano 2y ago
Most non competes are signed on your first day of work after you quit your previous job (under duress) and provide no consideration. Basic contract law should have thrown these out long ago.
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  In my experience, "non competes" form part of an employment contract, as a clause of the employment contract, and are not an entirely separate contract. In contract law, the requirement for consideration applies to the contract as a whole, not to each individual clause. An employment contract, as a whole, definitionally provides consideration. Can you give some examples where "non competes" are signed independently of your employment contracts without consideration? The quoted article refers to them as clauses, and the FTC rule in question is also titled the "Non-Compete Clause Rule" [1]. [1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/07/2024-09171/non-compete-clause-rule https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/07/2024-09...
  - willcipriano 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

josefritzishere 2y ago

Non-competes are most often an abuse of power. There's no legal basis for their existence without due compensation. The FTC change made proper allowances for executives and IP. I think the Texas court ruling is deeply and perhaps criminally flawed.