The Chevron overturn will be an issue here. The question isn't whether non-competes can be banned, its whether the FTC has jurisdiction and authority.
Not only do you need to have the jurisdiction and authority, but some random judge can decide you haven't justified it to her liking and block it anyway.
Our legal system is far from infallible.
[1] Acknowledging that in this case, the judge also believes it's not within their authority.
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.)
> (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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes. The FTC’s powers over employment aren’t as clearly defined.
Congress absolutely has the right to regulate employment.
On what basis? What provision in the Constitution gives Congress that power?
Ok. I am posting in another discussion downthread on whether "commerce" includes employment.
There are 5 axioms of Euclidean Geometry. Those 5 simple axioms have a vast number of implications as evidenced by all the theorems in Euclidean Geometry. In the same way there are logical conclusions to the statements in the Constitution. It is settled law that Congress can regulate employment.
Which ones, and how?
You are welcome to research the topic yourself. There are lots of books on the history of labor rights and labor struggles in the U.S. and the role courts have played in this.
But you might be right that the experts on this topic know less than you and that there is no justifiable implied power of Congress to regulate labor markets.
The same vast majority of legal experts, lawmakers, and those knowledgeable on the subject also believe:
That Congress can delegate legislative power to Executive Branch agencies, in spite of the explicit statement at the beginning of Article I that all legislative power shall be vested in Congress, as long as Congress gives an "intelligible principle" to guide the Executive branch agency (Hampton Co. v. United States);
That Congress can regulate a farmer growing wheat for his own use, that never leaves his property, under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn);
That seizing private homes, evicting their owners, and turning the property over to a private developer is a "public use" under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment (Kelo v. New London).
Given the above (and those are just a few examples I thought of off the top of my head), I do not accept that what such a "vast majority" believe is a good guide to what the Constitution actually says.
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8:~...
The supreme court can strike it down, but congress very much can introduce federal bills pertaining to labor.
Are you saying there was a Constitutional amendment empowering Congress to impose a minimum wage? Which one?
Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution, you perform an even more involved process which includes ratification from 75% of the states. But this is extremely difficult, by design.
>Which one?
In this case, the US code for this is The Fair Labor Standards Act Of 1938, last amended in 2011. But the amendment to this act that increases minimum wage was last amended in 2009.
Then why did you say "the entire amendment process" in response to my question?
> Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution".
No, that's not how it works. The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress can't just pass any law it likes as long as it follows the process given in the Constitution.
> There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage.
Again, this is backwards. I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage. If there isn't, Congress can't do it (unless the Constitution is amended to add that to the list of things Congress can legislate about).
> Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution
There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended, which is what the more difficult process you describe does, but that doesn't "override" it or pass a "stronger law" in spite of it, it amends it.
Because I'm not a lawyer and my main point was "yes, congress can control this stuff"
>The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitutio
I'm going to guess "setting minimum wage" isn't specifically enumerated in Article I, section 8. But yes, we have federal laws we revise overtime outlining that.
>I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage.
Probbaly not. But there are mechanisms on how congress can draft laws to enforce a minimum wage. Of course it can be challenged by the SCOTUS, but that's one hell of a hill to die on, even by 2024 standards.
It not adjusting for 15 years is pretty close. Sometimes apathy is the best malice.
>There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended
Did you want to talk about congress passing laws or argue pedantism against the spirit of HN? I'm not a lawyer so my language will not be precise as the centuries and thousands of pages of law talking about this.
My main point was that yes, congress can pass laws that regulate employment. No it doesn't need to be the 28th amendment to take effect. There's no point grilling me on the legalese because that is far outside my purview (and frankly, far outside the scope of a comment on Hacker News. I'm not drafting an entire book try and likely fail to convince someone who is simply prodding instead of giving their own opinions on the matter)