The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under President Joe Biden's administration, sent shockwaves through the business world earlier this year when it announced a ban on non-compete agreements.
The announcement was monumental, especially in certain industries like the tech sector.
"Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand," FTC Chair Lina Khan said in April when it was announced.
However, according to The Post Millennial, the ban was just blocked by a Texas-based federal judge, who ruled that the FTC exceeded its authority in issuing the bombshell decision.
Judge Ada Brown of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas held nothing back in her ruling this week, explaining why she believes the FTC lacked the authority to issue such a decision.
"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," the judge's ruling read.
"The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition ... instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious," she added.
Federal judge rules that the FTC ban on no competes is not legal. Our federal government continues to be struck down by the courts for unconstitutional or illegal actions. We need an administration that care about the law and the constitution. pic.twitter.com/53uFPfQoIe
— Matt Nachtrab (@MattNachtrab) August 20, 2024
Not surprisingly, the FTC wasn't thrilled with the judge's ruling.
"Today’s decision does not prevent the FTC from addressing noncompetes through case-by-case enforcement actions," FTC spokesperson Victoria Graham.
It was noted that the FTC is "seriously considering a potential appeal," though it's unclear when that would take place.
Users across social media offered mixed reactions to the federal judge's ruling.
"Nice work guys! The FTC's attempt to end-run the legislative process (and Constitution) was bound to fail and glad Gibson Dunn was there to do it," on X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "You should be ashamed of yourself you cretin. Chaining people down to a job and then not allowing them to work in their field is un-American."
The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision to toss a pro-abortion ballot initiative over administrative failures by the organizers, Just The News reported. Arkansans for Limited Government was attempting to enshrine abortion rights through an amendment to the state's constitution.
The decision means this issue will not appear on the ballot in November's general election. The lower court had thrown out the ballot initiative because Arkansas for Limited Government didn't provide documentation for the people who were paid to gather signatures.
The state's high court ruled in a 4-3 decision to keep the question off the ballot. "We find that the Secretary correctly refused to count the signatures collected by paid canvassers because the sponsor failed to file the paid canvasser training certification," the court said.
This decision is a blow to Vice President Kamala Harris, who is running for president on a radically pro-abortion ticket. She and other Democrats have leaned into the issue this election cycle as Republicans continue to fight for the rights of the unborn.
The initiative the group proposed would have allowed abortion for all reasons up to 20 weeks in pregnancy, and up until birth for cases of rape, incest, and threats to the mother's health. Shockingly, abortion perpetrators at Planned Parenthood found it was too restrictive to back.
Arkansas for Limited Government was outraged at the decision that meant babies would escape the abortionists' instruments of death. The organizers called it a "dark day for Arkansas" in an emailed statement to the Associated Press.
"This effort has generated a wave of fiercely engaged Arkansas women. We are outraged," the group added.
"We will not back down. And we will remember this in November," Arkansas for Limited Government claimed. However, thanks to the Arkansas Supreme Court judges, their perverted priorities will have to wait.
The state's GOP Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders posted to X that the reprieve for the unborn came about in part because of her leadership.
"Proud I helped build the first conservative Supreme Court majority in the history of Arkansas, and today that court upheld the rule of law, and with it, the right to life," Sanders said.
Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, Democrats have doubled down on their crusade to keep abortion legal throughout pregnancy. As Politico pointed out, Democrats now speak of it in a way "once unimaginable."
Far from the "safe, legal, and rare" mantra previously embraced to make it more palatable, Democrats are now about championing abortion as a sacred right. That was the theme at this week's Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
Harris sees this as a winning issue, as it has become front and center now that a bad U.S. Supreme Court precedent has been overturned. Democrats see it as a foundation for their platform and a way to win over women voters, but they won't benefit from the ballot initiative to drive turnout in Arkansas.
"Look at the immediate shift that we’ve seen with the vice president around trusting women. From a messaging standpoint, it’s really important because it’s setting up a broader kind of values framework for the policy to live in," Planned Parent CEO Alexis McGill Johnson said about the change in an interview.
The ballot initiative in Arkansas was defeated, and that is good news. However, the broader issue is that this is quickly becoming a nation where women believe they're only free when they have the right to kill their babies.
A federal judge has struck down Joe Biden's sweeping ban on noncompete agreements - another sobering blow for the lame duck president as he faces the end of his term.
Texas judge Ada Brown, a Donald Trump appointee, blocked the ban from taking effect in September. The judge's ruling applies nationwide.
About 30 million Americans are under noncompete agreements, which prevent employees from going to work for competitors.
The Federal Trade Commission enacted the ban in May along partisan lines, sparking challenge from business groups including the Chamber of Commerce.
Those in favor of the FTC rule say it is good for workers, but opponents say it stretches the federal agency's authority and could expose trade secrets. In a win for the challengers, Judge Ada Brown found the rule's sweeping scope "arbitrary and capricious."
“The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition … instead of targeting specific, harmful noncompetes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious,” Brown wrote.
The White House blasted the judge's ruling as a win for big corporations and special interests.
“The Biden-Harris Administration will keep fighting to empower workers to choose where they work, to start a business, and to get the pay they deserve, and continues to support the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements," press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said.
The noncompete ban is part of an aggressive anti-trust agenda being pursued by Biden's FTC chair, Lina Khan. Many Republicans have painted Khan as hostile to free markets, but she has won praise from some populists on the right including J.D. Vance.
The Chamber of Commerce called Brown's ruling "a significant win in the Chamber’s fight against government micromanagement of business decisions.”
"A sweeping prohibition of noncompete agreements by the FTC was an unlawful extension of power that would have put American workers, businesses, and our economy at a competitive disadvantage,” Chamber President and CEO Suzanne Clark said in a statement
FTC spokesperson Victoria Graham said the agency would consider an appeal.
“We are disappointed by Judge Brown’s decision and will keep fighting to stop noncompetes that restrict the economic liberty of hardworking Americans, hamper economic growth, limit innovation, and depress wages,” Graham said.
“We are seriously considering a potential appeal, and today’s decision does not prevent the FTC from addressing noncompetes through case-by-case enforcement actions.”
The chief justice of Nebraska's Supreme Court, Michael Heavican, is stepping down in the fall.
After 18 years on the bench, Heavican, 77, will retire effective October 31.
The chief justice shared the news of his retirement with court staff in a brief letter.
“Thanks to all of you for the great work you do every day in delivering justice in our courts and fulfilling for all Nebraskans our State’s motto: ‘Equality Before the Law,’” Heavican wrote.
"Your accomplishments over the last 18 years have made me proud to serve as Chief Justice. I will be forever grateful to you for all your hard work and dedication."
All but one of the court's seven justices were appointed by Republicans. Heavican was seated in 2006 by Republican governor Dave Heineman.
Current Republican governor Jim Pillen will choose his successor.
“I have enjoyed getting to know Chief Justice Heavican and I often repeat to others the observation he made to me about walking into the Supreme Court Chamber,” Pillen said in a statement. “He noted that each time felt like the very first — conveying a wonderment, love and appreciation for a career that has resulted in immense satisfaction and fulfillment.”
Before serving on the court, Heavican was appointed U.S. Attorney in Nebraska by President George W. Bush. He served in that position from 2001 to 2006, and before that, was a Lancaster County attorney from 1981 to 1991.
Lt. Gov. Joe Kelly, who worked with Heavican at Lancaster County, called him "the perfect example of all that a public servant should be.”
U.S. Senator Deb Fischer praised Heavican for his "unwavering dedication to Nebraska and to the law."
Congratulations to my good friend Chief Justice Heavican for a long, distinguished career of service to Nebraskans. Your unwavering dedication to Nebraska and to the law has strengthened our judiciary and reached all corners of our state.
— Senator Deb Fischer (@SenatorFischer) August 23, 2024
Republican attorney general Mike Hilgers also applauded Heavican and his "immense impact on our State." He noted Heavican would make regular rounds of the state's courts to meet with employees.
"His honesty, thoughtfulness, and pursuit of fairness and justice are second to none,” Hilgers said. “We will miss his leadership.”
A judicial nominating commission will screen candidates for Governor Pillen to choose from.
The Supreme Court of Arizona has given the greenlight for voters to decide whether abortion is a fundamental right this fall.
The ruling could help Democrats in their efforts to put abortion front and center in the presidential election, in which Arizona will once again be an important battleground.
The ballot measure, if adopted, would codify a right to abortion until 24 weeks, which is considered to be the point when a fetus is viable outside the womb. The amendment also legalizes abortions beyond viability to protect a mother's life or physical or mental health.
Arizona Right to Life challenged the language of the proposed amendment as misleading. They said the amendment does not make clear that it would overturn existing law, which allows abortion until 15 weeks with exceptions for medical emergencies after that point.
The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed, finding "reasonable" people would understand that laws in conflict with the amendment would be nullified. The court said it does not have the role of resolving disputes between "reasonable people" over phrasing.
"We have noted that '(r)easonable people can differ about the best way to describe a principal provision, but a court should not enmesh itself in such quarrels," the court wrote in its ruling.
Abortion advocates gathered 577,971 signatures to put the amendment on the ballot. The left-wing group behind the Arizona measure, Arizona For Abortion Access, praised the ruling.
"We are confident that this fall, Arizona voters will make history by establishing a fundamental right to abortion in our state, once and for all," the group said in a statement.
Democrats also won a push Tuesday to put an abortion amendment on the ballot in Montana, which will play a role in deciding control of the U.S. Senate.
The Supreme Court clarified in 2022 that there is no constitutional right to an abortion, sending the issue back to the states. Democrats have capitalized on the return of abortion restrictions in some states to galvanize opposition to Republicans.
Kamala Harris' presidential campaign has emphasized protecting abortion as an essential American "freedom." Republicans are trusted more on the top issues of immigration and the economy, with a slowing jobs market, steep housing costs and record border crossings dampening the national mood.
Arizona, a border state, has been inundated with illegal immigrants over the past four years.
The state's deadline for printing ballots falls Thursday.
Republicans have asked the Supreme Court to stop 40,000 voters who have no proof of citizenship from casting ballots in the 2024 presidential race.
Democrats are furiously opposed to the request, which could tip the scales in a crucial swing state that Joe Biden carried by 10,000 votes in 2020.
The dispute in Arizona has to do with a conflict between state and federal law on proof of citizenship. Arizona started requiring proof to register in 2004, but in 2013, the Supreme Court found the requirement was preempted by the federal "motor voter" law signed by Bill Clinton.
At the time, the Court ruled that the National Voter Registration Act requires all states to "accept and use" the standardized federal form, which asks for a sworn declaration of citizenship. However, no proof is required.
While Arizona has allowed voters who use the federal form to vote in federal elections, Republicans in 2022 passed a law to restrict these "federal only" voters from casting ballots in presidential elections or voting by mail. The law was immediately challenged and has yet to take effect.
Defending the law to the Supreme Court, the Republican National Committee says Congress cannot override "the Arizona Legislature’s sovereign authority to determine the qualifications of voters and structure participation in its elections."
Democrats have dismissed concerns about non-citizens voting as exaggerated and rooted in conspiracy theories. But in a battleground like Arizona, even a small number of illegal votes could make a big difference.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) says Republicans want the Supreme Court to disenfranchise 41,000 lawful voters based on unfounded theories of fraud.
"There is no evidence of fraud and undocumented voting. The 2024 election is weeks away and acting now to restrict the voting rights of a large group of Arizona's voters is undemocratic," Fontes said.
Republicans want the Supreme Court to step in by Thursday before counties start printing ballots. The Biden administration argues it would be disruptive to require proof of citizenship this late in the game.
"Thousands of voters have already registered to vote by filing the federal form without accompanying documentary proof of citizenship," said Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. "Judicial intervention at this stage would produce unnecessary confusion and chaos on the cusp of an election."
The federal judge in Hunter Biden's tax trial has rejected a last-ditch effort to toss the charges, all but ending any chance that he can avoid trial in September.
Biden has sought to have the charges thrown out a number of ways. He has even claimed he is being targeted politically by his father's Justice Department, echoing Donald Trump.
Biden's lawyers redoubled an effort to disqualify the prosecutor in charge, Special Counsel David Weiss, after Trump's classified documents case was tossed in July. The judge in that case, Aileen Cannon, ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith wasn't appointed legally.
In a ruling Monday, California judge Mark Scarsi dismissed Biden's latest attempt to dismiss the charges as a rehash of matters that the court already ruled on.
"As he concedes in his notice of the motion, Mr. Biden plainly seeks reconsideration of issues already decided upon his February motion," Scarsi wrote, adding, "there is no valid basis for reconsideration of the court's [prior] order denying Mr. Biden's motion to dismiss the indictment."
Scarsi had threatened to sanction Biden's lawyers for lying about important differences between the Trump and Biden cases. Unlike Smith, Weiss was a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney before he was named Special Counsel, and he filed charges before his promotion.
The judge backed away from sanctions Monday but warned Biden's lawyers that "candor is paramount" after they admitted their argument was "inartfully" expressed.
Scarsi's latest ruling all but guarantees that Biden will stand trial in September for evading taxes on $1.4 million in foreign income from 2016 to 2019.
Prosecutors recently introduced evidence that Hunter tried to influence the U.S. government on behalf of a Romanian client during Joe Biden's vice presidency.
Hunter Biden's lawyers have accused Weiss of adding "irrelevant" claims to the tax case to levy broader "politically charged" accusations against the Biden family.
"The Special Counsel's unnecessary change of tactic merely echoes the baseless and false allegations of foreign wrongdoing which have been touted by House Republicans to use Mr. Biden's proper business activities in Romania and elsewhere to attack him and his father," attorneys wrote.
In November, Hunter Biden will be sentenced in his separate felony gun case. Biden was convicted in June for lying about his drug addiction when purchasing a firearm.
Democrat New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez resigned from the Senate on Tuesday after he was convicted on federal bribery charges last month.
Menendez was convicted of accepting gold bars and cash to act as an agent for Egypt after FBI agents raided his home and found $480,000 in cash and gold bars.
He let Governor Phil Murphy (D) know he was resigning the same day he was convicted, and last Friday he ended his re-election bid as an independent as well.
Even so, Menendez is appealing his conviction and has started by filing a 30-page motion to dismiss the case.
"The government failed to prove any of the elements of the alleged quid pro quo," his defense said.
Murphy has named his gubernatorial chief of staff George Helmy to finish out Menendez's term until the election can take place.
Democrat Andy Kim and Republican Curtis Bashaw are running for the seat in November.
The seat is probably safe for Democrats, since a Republican has not won in New Jersey in five decades.
Menendez, 70, has been in political office since a few years after his high school graduation, starting with the local board of education and moving to the state legislature and then Congress.
His Senate career started with an appointment in 2006 when then-Senator John Corzine was elected governor. He then was re-elected and has served since.
He was tried for bribery once before in 2015, when he was accused of getting luxury vacations and campaign contributions from a dentist in exchange for favors.
The charges were eventually dropped when the prosecution couldn't prove its case.
The previous charges may have emboldened Menendez to think he could get away with doing the same thing again, assuming he was guilty the first time.
This time, however, he has a different reality to face.
The chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court is not recusing herself from a controversial case that could change how judicial power works in the swing state.
This week, the state Supreme Court will decide on a legal challenge to Proposition 137, a Republican-backed ballot measure that would allow most judges to serve indefinitely, unless they do something bad.
Under the current "retention" system, judges must be elected again by voters when their term expires. Judges for the Supreme Court are appointed by the governor.
Proposition 137 would raise the bar for retention, allowing voters to unseat sitting judges only if they are convicted of a felony, declare bankruptcy or fail to meet judicial standards.
The controversy is part of a broader national battle on judicial power and abortion. The two Arizona Supreme Court justices facing retention this year, Clint Bolick and Kathyrn King, voted to uphold an 1864 abortion ban.
Democrats want to channel abortion backlash to unseat Bolick and King, whose replacements would be handpicked by Democratic governor Katie Hobbs, an abortion supporter.
But the results of the retention races would be nullified if voters approve Proposition 137, which applies retroactively to October 31.
Bolick and King are the only justices on the bench to recuse themselves from the case.
Progress Arizona, a leftist group, sued to keep the amendment off the ballot. The Supreme Court will decide the controversy this week after the lawsuit was rejected by a lower court.
Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer told a local outlet that she can weigh the retention case without a conflict. Any benefit that she stands to gain from Proposition 137 is "speculative" because she is not facing retention this year.
“It may not even occur that I stand for retention,” she told Capitol Media Services. “I think that is too attenuated in my mind to make for a conflict of interest.”
The state Supreme Court has seven justices who serve six-year terms. All seven sitting justices were appointed by Republican governors.
The new retention rules would allow judges to serve indefinitely "during good behavior," which is the same standard used by the U.S. Supreme Court.
President Biden has pushed for sweeping reforms, including term limits, to weaken the Supreme Court's conservative majority. Democrats have blasted the court's conservatives as extreme and out of touch, citing controversial rulings such as the decision to repeal Roe v. Wade.
A Wisconsin-based Catholic Charities group is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to exempt it from a state unemployment program after the Wisconsin state Supreme Court ruled that it was not classified under "typical" religious activities because of the way it is run.
"Catholic Charities Bureau carries out our Diocese’s essential ministry of caring for the most vulnerable members of our society," said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. "We pray the Court will recognize that this work of improving the human condition is rooted in Christ’s call to care for those in need."
Catholic Charities groups see their ministry as helping the needy, but they don't make their aid conditional upon the receivers believing the same thing they do.
They make it a point to hire people even if they don't share Catholic beliefs and don't try to convert them, which is what made the state supreme court say they weren't "typical" for a religious group.
If the group only hired Catholics and tried to convert those it serves, it could be exempt, the state court said.
"The Wisconsin Supreme Court thought it atypical of religion that Catholic Charities does not ‘attempt to imbue’ those it helps with the Catholic faith, and that it hires employees 'regardless of religion.' And the court held that because Catholic Charities provides services that ‘can be provided by organizations of either religious or secular motivations,’ those services do not have a religious purpose," the petition to the Supreme Court stated.
"Put another way, it doesn’t matter if Catholic Charities gives a cup of water in Jesus’ name, because non-religious charities offer cups of water too," it reasoned.
"That absurd result deepens a split between state courts that require religious entities to conform to stereotypes to qualify for the ‘religious purposes’ exemption and those that do not," the petition said.
"And that thrusts state governments into a thicket of First Amendment questions under the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, and the church autonomy doctrine, not least because it forces agencies and courts to second-guess the religious decisions of religious bodies," it continued.
In so many words, the petition is saying, "Since when does any court get to decide whether the way we practice our religion is valid?
That's a good point: there are all kinds of religious practices these days, and no one outside the religion should be allowed to force it to conform to any specific thing in order to be considered a valid religious practice.
As long as it doesn't break any laws, why should a court get to determine this?
"It shouldn’t take a theologian to understand that serving the poor is a religious duty for Catholics," said Eric Rassbach, senior counsel at Becket. "But the Wisconsin Supreme Court embraced the absurd conclusion that Catholic Charities has no religious purpose. We’re asking the Supreme Court to step in and fix that mistake."
The Supreme Court might decide as early as this fall to take the case.