SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us chamber of commerce
Trump Judge Partially Blocks FTC Ban on Anti-Worker Noncompete Clauses
"We will keep fighting to free hardworking Americans from unlawful noncompetes," the agency said in response to the decision.
Jul 04, 2024
A Trump-appointed federal judge on Wednesday partially blocked a Federal Trade Commission rule banning most noncompete clauses, ubiquitous anti-worker agreements that prevent employees from moving to or starting their own competing businesses.
Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary ruling preventing the ban from taking effect against the handful of plaintiffs that sued the FTC over the rule mere hours after it was finalized in April. The plaintiffs include the tax service firm Ryan LLC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest corporate lobbying organization.
Researchers at the Revolving Door Project noted Wednesday that Ryan LLC was "represented by [former President Donald] Trump's Labor Secretary, Eugene Scalia, via BigLaw firm Gibson Dunn."
Watchdogs accused the U.S. Chamber, which celebrated Wednesday's decision, of "judge-shopping," a tactic the organization frequently uses to secure favorable legal outcomes. District courts in Texas fall under the purview of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is dominated by right-wing extremists.
In her Wednesday decision, Brown did not immediately grant the plaintiffs' request for a nationwide injunction against the ban on noncompetes. But the judge signaled she would likely block the rule in its entirety with her final decision in the case on August 30—just days before the ban's scheduled implementation date.
"The court concludes the commission has exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the noncompete rule, and thus plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits," Brown wrote in her 33-page decision.
"The need for judicial reform in Congress has never been more clear as far-right 5th Circuit territory judges have effectively put up a giant neon sign, 'Corporations, Please Sue Here.'"
A spokesperson for the FTC said in response to the ruling that the agency stands by its "clear authority, supported by statute and precedent, to issue this rule."
"We will keep fighting to free hardworking Americans from unlawful noncompetes, which reduce innovation, inhibit economic growth, trap workers, and undermine Americans' economic liberty," the spokesperson added.
The FTC, led by antitrust trailblazer Lina Khan, estimates that roughly 30 million U.S. workers are bound by noncompete agreements that restrict their ability to switch jobs in pursuit of higher wages and better benefits. The commission believes its ban on noncompetes would result in up to $488 billion in wage increases for U.S. workers collectively over the next decade.
Progressive advocacy groups cast Wednesday's decision as the latest attack on workers—and gift to corporations—by a Trump-appointed judge.
"By halting the noncompetes ban, this court is standing in the way of real gains for workers again," said Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress. "With the decision overturning Chevron earlier this week, it's a one-two punch against everyday people."
Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US, said in a statement that "the industry-funded U.S. Chamber continues to cost everyday Americans a ton of money with its suing spree against the Biden administration crackdowns on corporate greed, junk fees, and anti-worker barriers."
"The U.S. Chamber's lawsuit holding up the administration's credit card late fee rule is already costing Americans $27 million a day —and now this latest lawsuit could slam the door shut for millions of American workers to begin pursuing better opportunities," said Carrk. "Noncompete clauses could force employees to endure low wages and poor working conditions as the rule drags through the courts. The big bank and Wall Street CEOs on the U.S. Chamber's board have gotten a huge return on their investment while American workers pay the price."
"The need for judicial reform in Congress has never been more clear," Carrk added, "as far-right 5th Circuit territory judges have effectively put up a giant neon sign, 'Corporations, Please Sue Here.'"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court's Right-Wing Majority Delivers Gift to Corporate Criminals
Decision in SEC v. Jarkesy decried as a "victory for the wealthy and powerful" delivered by a right-wing majority that once again put "corporations, Wall Street, and billionaire benefactors over everyday Americans."
Jun 27, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled along ideological lines that the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot use in-house legal proceedings to civilly penalize fraudsters, a decision that could strike a devastating blow to federal agencies' ability to fight corporate crime.
In the 6-3 decision, the high court's conservative supermajority deemed the SEC's in-house proceedings unconstitutional, siding with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other big business-aligned organizations that weighed in on the side of the plaintiff—conservative radio host and hedge fund manager George Jarkesy, who was accused by the SEC of defrauding investors and ordered to pay a $300,000 civil penalty.
Jarkesy argued the SEC proceedings violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. But as Vox's Ian Millhiser observed, "the Constitution treats civil trials very differently from criminal proceedings."
"While the Sixth Amendment provides that 'in all criminal prosecutions' the defendant is entitled to a jury trial," Millhiser wrote, "the Seventh Amendment provides a more limited jury trial right, requiring them 'in suits at common law.'"
Millhiser argued that with its ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, the high court effectively "lit a match and tossed it into dozens of federal agencies."
The Supreme Court's three liberal judges dissented from Thursday's decision, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor denouncing the ruling as "a power grab" with potentially "momentous consequences."
"Today's ruling is part of a disconcerting trend: When it comes to the separation of powers, this court tells the American public and its coordinate branches that it knows best," Sotomayor wrote, warning that the decision "means that the constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress."
Congress would have to give a bunch of federal agencies VASTLY more money and personnel to handle all the jury trials they would need to conduct to patch the hole that SCOTUS just blew in their enforcement powers. It won't happen. This case will just let lawbreakers off the hook.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 27, 2024
Consumer advocates and watchdog organizations warned the high court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy could have implications that extend well beyond the Securities and Exchange Commission, given that other key agencies—including the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency—use internal legal proceedings overseen by an administrative law judge.
The Associated Pressnoted Thursday that the SEC "had already reduced the number of cases it brings in administrative proceedings pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the case."
"Today's decision is another step in the long-term corporate project of neutering federal agencies' ability to protect the public from fraudsters, rip-offs, dangerous products, carbon polluters, and more," Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said in a statement. "The decision will have near-term consequences for the financial system, as it hinders the SEC's ability to seek critical penalties."
As a result of Thursday's ruling, said Weissman, some federal agencies "will need new authority from Congress, which is not doing much legislating, in order to be able to enforce the law."
"The decision extols the Seventh Amendment, but shows little respect for the separation of powers that is at the heart of our constitutional system," Weissman added. "There's also more than a little irony in this court touting the right to access the court system, when it has broadly allowed companies to require consumers to use arbitration rather than protecting their right to access the courts."
"In gutting the federal government's ability to enforce laws enacted by Congress, this ruling gives special interests even more power to set the rules for the rest of us."
As Politicoreported last month, an "alliance of tech billionaires, conservative legal activists, and the business lobby" joined the fight to strip the SEC of the key enforcement tool.
The outlet noted that "since Jarkesy was filed, companies including Meta, SpaceX, and Amazon have escalated it into a broader fight against federal power by suing other agencies over their own courts—a way of fighting unfavorable judgments by attacking the system that delivered it."
The Revolving Door Project noted in an analysis released Thursday that at least 13 organizations with "ties to court-whisperers and judicial gift-givers like Leonard Leo, Charles Koch, Paul Singer, Harlan Crow, and wealthy elites in the Horatio Alger Association in which Clarence Thomas is a key member" submitted amicus briefs supporting Jarkesy's fight against the SEC.
"Some of the organizations that supported the weakening of the SEC have direct ties to the powerful friends and benefactors of the court," the group said. "The very same people who are flying Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to vacation destinations on private jets are closely tied to organizations that are urging the court through amicus briefs to rule in a manner favorable to corporate wrongdoers."
Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement Thursday that the Supreme Court's decision "is a victory for the wealthy and powerful, delivered by a Supreme Court conservative majority all too used to putting corporations, Wall Street, and billionaire benefactors over everyday Americans."
"In gutting the federal government's ability to enforce laws enacted by Congress, this ruling gives special interests even more power to set the rules for the rest of us," said Ciccone. "Let's be clear: This is a power grab that will ultimately harm ordinary people by making it harder for federal agencies to hold corporations accountable for misdeeds."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular