A federal court in Texas has thrown out the government’s ban on noncompete agreements that was set to take effect September 4.

In her ruling, Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas wrote that the federal agency had overstepped its power when it approved the ban.

“The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition,” she wrote. "The role of an administrative agency is to do as told by Congress, not to do what the agency think[s] it should do.”

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
    69·
    4 months ago

    “The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition,”

    Huh?

    Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; © prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914

    https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/federal-trade-commission-act

    The literal text of the FTC Act says:

    Sec. 5. [15 U.S.C. 45] (a)(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 18(f)(3), Federal credit unions described in section 18(f)(4), common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended, except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act, from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-388/uslm/COMPS-388.xml

    They are doing exactly what Congress told them to do.

    • Atom@lemmy.world
      42·
      4 months ago

      Just the begining after striking down Chevron Deference. Sure, common sense says that is well within the purview of the FTC granted by Congress. But now, without chevron in place, the court is going to say anything that is not word for word directed by congress, is outside of an agency’s jurisdiction.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        26·
        4 months ago

        While we’re on the same side here and you’re otherwise right, it WAS word for word directed by Congress!

        There’s literally no possible reading of the FTC Act passed by Congress that doesn’t explicitly and word for word say the exact opposite of what this brains replaced with bribes fucking kangaroo court says in this gargantuan miscarriage of justice!

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
          9·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, that was my take too. The language in the Act seems pretty straightforward to me, and the judge’s statement seems to directly contradict it (but IANAL).

          Maybe he’s trying to split hairs over the FTC not having direction to regulate how employers deal with employees, and saying that doesn’t fall under “commerce”?

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            2·
            4 months ago

            Maybe he’s trying to split hairs over the FTC not having direction to regulate how employers deal with employees, and saying that doesn’t fall under “commerce”?

            Probably, but that’s still absolute lunacy from the standard of objective reality and probably shaky as hell from a purely legal one too.

            Might as well have ruled that the IOC aren’t allowed to make decisions regarding the Olympics for all the sense this makes 🤦

        • Atom@lemmy.world
          6·
          4 months ago

          You’re absolutely right, it’s absurd and that’s the point. For the GOP court to say the FTC can do that, they will expect Congress to pass a law saying “the FTC has the authority to ban non-compete agreements of every kind” but that’s dumb and defeats the purpose of executive agencies, we agree. But that’s the point. Congress will rarely if ever be that specific, so anyone can argue a law is not what they meant and the agencies have no deference.

          The end goal is agencies are powerless and Congress is paralyzed, so the judiciary has all of the authority to decide what everything means.

    • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
      15·
      4 months ago

      The supreme Court overturned Chevron. There will be more things just like this as a result. They arbitrarily stripped a ton of power from regulators.

    • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
      5·
      4 months ago

      Words mean whatever the people in powersay they mean, and unless and until the rest of us are sick enough to actually do something about it… Well… Nothing changes if you don’t do something different.