2 ms·

> 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

> 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).