Judge says FTC lacks authority to issue rule banning noncompete agreements
Judge says FTC lacks authority to issue rule banning noncompete agreements
Authority cited by FTC just a "housekeeping statute," US judge in Texas rules.
Gotta love a shitty repub SCOTUS. Its awesome.
Fuck Texas, residents of the state can keep their fucking non-competes if they love them so fucking much... elsewhere let's move ahead with this fucking awesome policy.
If your company has PTO hours and you leave your job in Texas they don't require you get paid out those hours so they are just lost. My coworker learned that. Absolutely need better worker protections across the board and Non-competes getting tossed is huge.
Fuck Texas. Anytime I hear people complain about “Democrat policies” around me, I just wish they’d move to their utopia in Florida, Texas, or any of the other “who’ll come up with the stupidest bullshit freedom-encroaching laws next” red state.
Workers leaving states like CA for Texas are like anti-vaxxers who think vaccines are stupid because they don’t know anyone with polio.
If our country survives for another couple decades, they’ll be so proud of themselves for “inventing” all the same worker protections they left behind. But not before experiencing their economic polio first hand.
It's just another bullet point in a half century long problem.
The FTC is an independent Federal anti-trust enforcement agency. After SCOTUS 1977 Continental TV v. GTE made the nuance of certain contact terms subjectively legal, allowing mergers likely in the interests of global competition, the FTC has been effectively neutered. The only significant action has been the breakup of the Bells in 1982 and some Microsoft anti-Netscape gibberish around 1999.
The FTC has effectively lost every significant case it's brought since about 1970. Consumers haven't had any significant protections since 1982, more than forty years ago.
I'd like my digital persona and its data to be an EU member, please
Yeah, it does seem like enforcement is a futile exercise that's permitted to happen for performative purpose while nothing gets done.
This sort of capture is pretty standard in other federal regulatory domains.
You either regulate pro industry or you won't regulate at all. There is really no solution being proposed or really this sort of things is not even knowledged in these circles since people are making careers.
Weird cause I've got the FTC act right here. Says this:
(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade (1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.
And then later on it has this whole entire section where it lays out the process for how the FTC is supposed to make rules in regards to unfair or deceptive practices
Except as provided in subsection (h) of this section, the Commission may prescribe-- (A) interpretive rules and general statements of policy with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce (within the meaning of section 45(a)(1) of this title), and (B) rules which define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce (within the meaning of section 45(a)(1) of this title)
And more sections about how they can enforce those rules on individual rule breakers.
Sure sounds like congress was trying to give the FTC the authority to make rules about unfair competition. Both general rules and with "specificity" apparently.
Yes, theoretically this should be fine even in a post-Chevron environment. Let's see how it goes, though...
This is why we can't have nice things.
It indeed is! They've been packing the courts since Regan. The US court system is basically the real government now.
There's so much bullshit going on in courts lately. It's hard to keep up enough to know if something is good or bad. It's starting to get fucking exhausting.
"court ruling blocks decision to block court decision to block court decision to ban plumbuses from not not being not sold in stores" - that's every other court releated headline.
To sum up: we recently got the awesome FTC instruction that noncompete agreements are disallowed in almost all cases.
Noncompete agreements keep workers from being able to work in their trained field just because they previously worked somewhere else in that field and had to sign a paper to do so. They're a tool used to harm worker power; traditionally for knowledge workers, but now it's being used all over the place.
The judge
SCsaid, you can't ban those. Noncompetes are cool and good. Fuck workers.EDIT: This was a 5th circuit judge, so not the USSC. A little below that level.
This is bad.
Theyre going as fast as they can in a mad blitz trying to cause as much harm as possible before they get stopped
Except no one's stopping em. Its like a sloth trying to stop a mosquito.
Almost like they don't really want them stopped.. just to look like they're trying
A tax services firm called Ryan, LLC sued the FTC in an attempt to block the rule. The lawsuit was joined by the US Chamber of Commerce, two Texas business groups, and a lobbyist association that represents chief executive officers at US businesses.
If you squint a little, you could see a fairly well delineated class in there.
Yeah this does seem cooked up like the gay cake and other cases that make headlines a lot.
They should be labeled as PR propaganda since most working people don't understand that a lot of shit being fed to us is outright enigeered and is being used to push some bullshit nobody benefits from.
Everyone should expect to see A LOT more of this 'lacks authority' bullshit to regulatory bodies in the wake of the sup court's Chevron decision and everything else the federalist society's thinktanks come up with
Sovcit-tier reasoning from some of the highest points in our rotten justice system once again.
Rule of law is quickly being destroyed in the US. It's a full-on coup of lawmaking ability
Congress blocks laws. Agencies can't make laws. Judges can make laws. President is above the law.
Federalist Society member, nominated by Trump.
Yet another reason why I’m willing to pay out the ass to live in California. If I become an expert in a technology field, and leave a toxic company for a different company in the same field, my previous employer can’t sue me.
Lina Khan looking fierce in that thumbnail. That's what I'm voting for in November.
One of the highlights of the Biden admin, definitely.
That thumbnail of Lina Khan perfectly encapsulates how I’m feeling about the government lately.
It's like peaceful reform is impossible.
Unfortunately, that's the way things are looking right now. The Heritage Foundation is also threatening violence against the left if they don't fall in line.
As if they won't commit violence anyway. Domestic terrorists the lot. All of MAGA should be on no fly lists and banned from owning guns.
The case is in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, so appeals would be heard in the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit—which is generally regarded as one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country.
In April, the FTC issued a rule that would render the vast majority of current noncompete clauses unenforceable and ban future ones. The agency said that noncompete clauses are "an unfair method of competition and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act,"
...
"The issue presented is whether the FTC's ability to promulgate rules concerning unfair methods of competition include the authority to create substantive rules regarding unfair methods of competition," Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote.
Brown acknowledged that "the FTC has some authority to promulgate rules to preclude unfair methods of competition." But "the text, structure, and history of the FTC Act reveal that the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition under Section 6(g)," she wrote.
"Traditionally the FTC has been a wet noodle. Seeking to actually fix anything would be overstepping their bounds."
Am I reading that right?
Congress creates agency to assist them in their duties. Agency works as intended and does them. Court blocks them by saying "you were made to do X, not X."
This wasn't SCOTUS. They would agree, but this was not them.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. created this monster. So yes the supreme court created this issue.
These are coming down because of SCOTUS taking down Chevron. Now every rule must explicitly by made by the bills congress passes. They can no longer state an intent and hire experts to implement those intents vis rules.
We are heading into a Libertarians wet dream of government agencies being nearly Powerless thanks to our SCOTIS.
Court System needs to be revamped and public elections held pronto, having respective districts elect Judges by the people instead of politicians.
Elected judges just make the dangers of populist factions like fascist even worse. That'd be a neat sighted decision.
Judges are meant to represent the people. They are meant to represent the laws enacted by them.
any day, whenever we the people want, we can 'fix' these judges.
I would just get a cat. Usually they fix them for free at the shelter. I mean you can fix a judge, don't get me wrong. But you probably don't want to do it cuz it's messy, and they don't like it! I haven't seen one judge yet say how good getting fixed was. Not one.
Here's the great thing, their dislike is a feature not a bug!
What Republicans hate about China is their big lead on the human rights abuse game... They're trying to catch up.
