On April ­­23 we reported on the Federal Trade Commission’s vote to ban almost all non-competition agreements in the United States. Within hours of that vote, Ryan LLC, a global tax consulting firm headquartered in Dallas, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging the FTC’s authority to issue such a rule.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been allowed to intervene in that case and will join in the challenge to the FTC ban.

Ryan’s claims are that:

1. The FTC lacks the legal authority to promulgate such a rule.
2. Even if Congress had granted that authority by statute, such a grant would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch, in violation of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
3. The FTC Act is unconstitutional because it limits the president’s authority to remove subordinates (in this case, FTC Commissioners).
4. The FTC promulgated the rule in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because it failed to establish a factual basis for the rule.
5. The rule is retroactive in purporting to invalidate all existing non-competition agreements, but the FTC has no authority to issue retroactive rules.

Based on our review of the pleadings filed thus far in the case, we think that the U.S. Chamber and its allies agree that these are the correct arguments and that they will file a brief supporting them.

Ryan is asking the court for two things: a stay of the effective date of the rule, and preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the FTC from enforcing it. The case is on an expedited schedule, with briefing to be completed by June 12 and a ruling expected on the pending motion by July 3.

Given that the rule’s effective date is September 4, if the court can meet that schedule, employers should have sufficient time to take the necessary steps to comply, if the court allows the rule to go into effect.

However, we would advise employers to start identifying all employees who are subject to an existing non-competition agreement, so they can move quickly to meet the notice requirements over the summer, should that become necessary.

Last year, I commented on the likely unconstitutionality of two California laws compelling forced speech:

The California legislature has of late adopted the tactic of driving behavior by compelling speech. SB 253 (Wiener), for example, compels disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and SB 261 (Stern) requires disclosure of climate-related financial risks. Both of these requirements clearly compel speech arguably in contravention of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006) (“Some of this Court’s leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.”).

I had previously noted that SB 253 was very similar to an earlier bill that did not make it into law.

Yesterday, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and several others filed suit in the Central District Court challenging these laws. In its complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the “State’s plan for compelling speech to combat climate change is unconstitutional – twice over.” The plaintiffs urge the court to apply “strict scrutiny” to both laws because they compel speech about a controversial subject – climate change. If the court applies strict scrutiny, the bills would be presumptively unconstitutional and may be upheld only by proof that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests. That is an exceedingly high hill to climb.

Because both bills quite obviously violate basic free speech rights, the question arises whether the authors knew or were grossly negligent in not knowing of the constitutional infirmities of the legislation. In 2020, I wrote Senator Wiener, the author of SB 253, that SB 260, “abridges free speech rights guaranteed by the U.S. and California Constitutions”. At the time, I was distressed that the legislative analyses for SB 260 failed to mention the constitutional infirmities of the bill. See Legislators Again Kept In Dark About Constitutional Infirmities Of Climate Corporate Accountability Act and Legislators Again Kept In Dark About Constitutional Infirmities of Climate Corporate Accountability Act.