News Item
A federal court in Texas has thrown out the government
It was only a matter of time.
A federal court in Texas has thrown out the government 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. The role of an administrative agency is to do as told by Congress, not to do what the agency think s it should do.
I note you did not post the ruling from PA that upheld the rule.
Then you know how this will end.
No, I do not. But I do know when the SCOTUS threw out Chevron they opened the door for judges to bring in their own political biases rather then rely upon expertise.
Judges are trained to interpret laws vis a vis the Constitution. Bureaucrats follow the dictates of the politicians. Since neither are elected the odds favor the expertise of judges over political appointees.
The politicians the beauty rats respond to are elected. Federal judges are not answerable. And lack the technical expertise that is often necessary to determine what regulations mean in practice.
To me, why do you think judges in PA and TX.came.to diametrically opposite conclusions?
Read the opinions.
All the technical expertise in the world is worthless if an executive action by passes the constitutional requirement of Congressional approval
Understanding regulatory language in context often will need more detailed k owledge of factual matters than a judge will have.
factual matters are superseded by Constitutional matters. The legislative body is answerable to the voters.
First, it is not a Constitutional matter. It is a question of whether the administrative body has acted within the statutory mandate. The Constitutional issue is a truism, since the administration is claiming it acted within the mandate and not without one. But this is a distinction I know in the past has escaped your understanding. Second, the factual issues are issues relating to the proper interpretation of the statutory language.
Your argument is without merit. Judges are, by training, experts on interpreting law and, at the federal level, need to be confirmed by the Senate.
Moreover their reasoning in written opinions are frequently scrutinized by legal scholars and the press.
It is harder for judges to become unduly influenced than it is for the other two branches, which make decisions behind closed doors often with little public oversight.
And bureaucrats change when Administrations change. Federal Judges do not.
Agencies
Poll
