Business
Column: A Trump judge blocks another pro-worker Biden initiative, this one involving noncompete clauses
Noncompete clauses in employment contracts are sterling examples of the give-them-an-inch-and-they’ll-take-a-mile principle in business behavior.
Once applied chiefly to executives, engineers and others with access to a company’s trade secrets, they have expanded to cover almost anybody — low-wage security guards, rank-and-file factory workers and even fast-food counter workers.
A recent academic survey estimated that nearly 1 in 5 American workers, or about 30 million people, are subject to noncompetes.
Noncompetes have long faced significant legal hostility because of their often blunt prohibition on employee mobility.
— Starr, Prescott and Bishara (2020)
Although the provisions are often described as noncompete “agreements,” the survey found that the vast majority of workers haven’t negotiated any such agreement with their employers, and about one-third are presented with the restriction after they’ve already accepted a job offer.
A couple of other points: Noncompetes tend to suppress wages. They also undermine innovation.
For these and other reasons, the Biden administration took aim at noncompete clauses in 2021, instructing the Federal Trade Commission to “curtail” those that “may unfairly limit worker mobility.”
After more than a year of study, the FTC followed through with a proposed rule, issued April 23 and scheduled to take effect Sept. 4, that banned new noncompetes and forbade the enforcement of existing clauses except for senior executives who were already subject to the restrictions.
You probably know what happened next: Big Business, in the guise of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sued to block the FTC’s rule. The lawsuit was filed not in Washington, D.C., where the agency resides, but in Texas, where it was almost certain to come before a conservative judge appointed by a Republican.
Sure enough, it came before Federal Judge Ada Brown of Dallas, a Trump appointee, who on July 3 blocked the FTC from implementing or enforcing its rule until further notice.
Brown says she will rule by Aug. 30, less than a week before the rule is set to take effect, on whether her decision will give relief only to the plaintiffs in the case — a Dallas tax firm founded by a former tax advisor to then-President Trump, the Chamber of Commerce, and other business associations — or apply nationwide.
Here’s the background.
As the academic economists observed in their survey, published in 2020, “noncompetes have long faced significant legal hostility because of their often blunt prohibition on employee mobility.” But they’ve been tolerated as long as they applied only to high-profile executives or professionals who might have access to proprietary information or clients.
Only three states outlaw noncompete clauses: California (where they were rendered unenforceable by law in 1872), Oklahoma and North Dakota. The New York Legislature voted to outlaw them last year, but Gov. Kathy Hochul vetoed the bill, bowing to pressure from Wall Street and business lobbyists.
The chamber’s lawsuit is chock full of risible misrepresentations. “For hundreds of years,” it says, “employers and workers have had the freedom to negotiate mutually beneficial non-compete agreements.” Among their virtues, the chamber asserts, is that they “incentivize investment in research and development … and facilitate the sorts of collaborative work environments needed for firms to innovate.”
The truth is just the opposite. Leaving aside the flagrant lie that noncompete clauses are the product of employer-employee “agreements,” evidence for the drawbacks of noncompete clauses — and for the value of eliminating them — is indisputable. One need not look further than the explosion of innovation in Silicon Valley, which was built by talented scientists and engineers who had the freedom to move from firm to firm, or start their own without interference from their employers.
Among the 400 engineers attending a 1969 conference in Silicon Valley (which had not yet been christened with that name), all but a couple of dozen had worked at one time or another for a single firm, Fairchild Semiconductor — which had been founded by eight former workers at Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory, some of whom would go on to found Intel Corp.
Nothing obstructed their movement — or the extraordinary level of innovation that made the valley what it remains today, the world’s leading center for technological research and development.
The economists — Evan Starr of the University of Maryland and J.J. Prescott and Norman Bishara of the University of Michigan — found that noncompete clauses keep wages low by blocking competition for workers among competing businesses. Some employers, they wrote, impose noncompete rules even when they’re legally unenforceable, in hopes that the mere threat of liability for breaching an employment contract will keep workers in place.
Big Business doesn’t have much of a case in favor of noncompete clauses. They’re the antithesis of the principles supposedly honored by “right to work” antiunion laws so beloved by employers and conservative politicians. They do, however, have a well-marked capacity to suppress wages and lock workers in lousy jobs.
There can be no question that the imposition of noncompete clauses has reached an absurd level.
The fast-food chain Jimmy John’s, for example, prohibited its employees from working at any other business that sells “submarine, hero-type, deli-style, pita, and/or wrapped or rolled sandwiches” within up to three miles from any Jimmy John’s store and for two years after leaving the company, according to a lawsuit filed in 2016 by Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan. The franchisor agreed to drop the clause to settle Madigan’s lawsuit and a second lawsuit filed by New York state.
Last year, the FTC sued two affiliated Michigan security firms, Prudential Security and Prudential Command, for requiring low-wage security guards to sign contracts prohibiting them from working for any competitor within 100 miles of their jobs for two years of leaving Prudential. The firms threatened the guards with $100,000 in penalties for violating the clause.
The agency also sued two glass container firms, O-I Glass of Ohio and Luxemburg-based Ardagh Group, over noncompete clauses imposed on a combined 1,700 furnace workers and other employees. Those clauses stifled innovation and competition in the glass industry, the FTC said, because it prevented rivals from finding skilled and experienced workers in an already highly concentrated industry.
Prudential’s owners and the glass companies all agreed to bans on imposing or enforcing their noncompete clauses on present or future employees.
In its current lawsuit in Texas, the Chamber of Commerce asserts that the FTC’s proposed ban on noncompete clauses exceeds the authority it was granted by Congress.
Its point, which was accepted in full by Brown, is that the agency is authorized only to make rules dealing with “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” not “unfair methods of competition.” (The FTC responds that the “clear language” of the 1914 FTC Act gives it full authority to “prevent unfair methods of competition through … rulemaking.”)
There’s more to the chamber’s lawsuit, however. It’s part of a concerted effort by the business community to undermine FTC Chair Lina Khan, who has worked hard to turn the agency into the vigorous protector of consumer rights that Congress envisioned in 1914, but which a succession of leaders allowed to fade into near-uselessness.
Taking a cue from attacks by Elon Musk and Trader Joe’s on the National Labor Relations Board, the chamber contends that the FTC itself is unconstitutional, because its commissioners can’t be removed by the president at will — they serve for seven years and can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
(Franklin Roosevelt learned this the hard way, when the Supreme Court overturned his firing of a Republican FTC commissioner in 1935; FDR’s irritation at that decision contributed to his decision to pursue a court-packing scheme, which failed.)
The federal courts generally haven’t looked kindly on these collateral attacks on federal agencies, however.
In filing its lawsuit, the chamber followed Big Business’ familiar and cynical practice of “forum-shopping,” or hunting for a federal court predestined to see things its way and willing to issue nationwide injunctions blocking Biden initiatives. For this case, it settled on federal court in Dallas, where only one of the eight sitting judges was appointed by a Democrat (Bill Clinton). Of the remaining seven, three are Trump appointees, including Brown.
Forum-shopping, especially among federal courts in Texas, has become such an embarrassment to the federal judiciary that the Judicial Conference of the United States, which sets policy for the federal courts, issued a statement in March calling on the district courts to find fairer ways to assign cases so they don’t all go to GOP-appointed judges.
David Godbey, the chief judge of the Northern District of Texas, where the chamber’s case landed, has refused to do so. Godbey is an appointee of George W. Bush. In any event, the likelihood that random assignment of the chamber’s lawsuit would be heard by a Republican appointee was obviously strong. Any appeal from Brown’s ruling would come before the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the dumbest and most reactionary appellate court in the land.
It’s likely that this issue will land before the Supreme Court. A second case challenging the FTC rule brought by a Philadelphia-area tree-trimming service backed by a right-wing legal foundation is being heard by a Biden-appointed judge, Kelley Brisbon Hodge, who says she will issue a preliminary ruling by July 23. If she backs the FTC and is upheld by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court may have to take the case to resolve any conflict. That means the FTC rule is likely to remain in limbo well into next year, or even beyond.
A rule intended to prevent rent gouging in the wake of the Eaton and Palisades fires has lapsed in Los Angeles County, possibly exposing some renters to hikes.
The executive order that blocked rent increases was issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom amid the devastating wildfires last year. Under the order, landlords couldn’t increase rents by more than 10% above their prefire levels.
The rule, which was supposed to be temporary and was repeatedly extended, ended Friday after a vote to extend it again failed to garner enough votes. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, sounded the alarm in a motion to extend price protections that failed to pass at the Board of Supervisors’ May 19 meeting.
“These price gouging protections continue to be necessary as construction and rebuilding continue, and as thousands of people remain displaced,” the motion said. “Families which signed short-term leases could face drastic price increases of 50% or more without further price gouging protection.”
Los Angeles County is home to more than 1 million rental properties, though not all of them needed protection from the new rule. There are already stricter rent increase caps for many residences, depending on the location, type and age of the building. Despite the rent control in the region, the people of Los Angeles pay among the highest rents in the country.
It is uncertain whether renters will face rapidly rising rents now that the protection has lapsed. But some real estate experts and policymakers said there was no need for the temporary rule that was part of the governor’s state of emergency.
Supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell abstained from voting on the motion to extend the protection, while Supervisors Hilda Solis and Horvath supported it.
“I abstained because I did not see sufficient evidence to justify extending this emergency ordinance, nor did I see evidence to eliminate it entirely,” Hahn said.
Barger’s office said she supported allowing the protections to sunset while waiting to see whether new information emerged.
“Market data already shows countywide rents are only about 2% above pre-emergency levels and rental inventory has grown,” Barger representative Helen E. Chavez Garcia said. “The Supervisor is also mindful of the burden these ongoing protections place on small property owners throughout the county.”
Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
There haven’t been steep rent hikes in neighborhoods within three miles of the Palisades fire, according to a Times analysis of data from Zillow, the property listing company.
In ZIP Codes within three miles of the Palisades fire, rent increased 4.8% from December 2024 to April 2025. In areas around the Eaton fire, which destroyed swaths of Altadena, rent jumped 5.2% in the same period.
In L.A. County, ZIP Codes farther from the fires saw only about a 2% increase.
A landlords representative, Jesus Rojas of the Apartment Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, told the supervisors during public comment at the meeting that the county’s rent-gouging rules have “long outlived the emergency they were intended to address” and are now being “wrongfully used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the county.”
“There is no proof that multifamily rental housing providers are hugely increasing rents for impacted homeowners,” Rojas said.
Indeed, there are strong signs that the property market in the Los Angeles area has at last begun to cool.
L.A. metro-area rent prices recently fell to a four-year low, with the median rent slipping to $2,167 in December.
Meanwhile, condominium sales had their slowest start of the year in decades. Condo sales in Los Angeles have plummeted to a 20-year low, with fewer than 2,000 units sold in January and February — the worst start to the year since 2005.
Newsom defended the price-gouging protections shortly after they went into effect.
“In the days following the Los Angeles firestorms, we worked quickly to protect Los Angeles survivors from any form of exploitation,” he said in February 2025. “The state has the tools in place to not only block price gouging during this emergency, but also to prosecute bad actors.”
The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs said it received more than 2,000 complaints after the fires, alleging that retailers and landlords were taking advantage of people put in hardship by their losses, and sent out more than 2,000 cease-and-desist letters to businesses and landlords for alleged price gouging, said Morine Merritt, who oversees department investigations into consumer and real estate fraud.
“Close to 90% of the complaints that we received involved allegations of rent increases,” Merritt said in an interview. Now that the fire-related protections have expired, existing laws and “regular market conditions determine price increases for goods and services, including rents,” she said.
Crackdowns on fire-related rent gouging have been rare, said Chelsea Kirk of the activist organization the Rent Brigade, which analyzed L.A. County’s rental market in the year after the fires. It reported 18,360 potential examples of price gouging in listings but said that few lawsuits had been filed by authorities so far.
Last week, Rent Brigade announced what it said was the first private civil lawsuit brought by a family that claimed to be rent-gouged in the aftermath of the wildfires. Plaintiffs Randall and Candy Renick, whose Altadena home was damaged, said they were charged nearly three times the maximum permitted rate for nearly 10 months. They seek restitution of $96,000 plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.
The rental market has probably stabilized since the fires, Kirk said, but other families may still be “locked into illegal rents” that they agreed to pay when they were in a rush to find housing after they were displaced.
Dear Mr. Pelley:
I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.
Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.
Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.
Sincerely,
Nick Bilton
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes
The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.
The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.
Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.
Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.
Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.
In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.
The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.
Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.
The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.
The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.
-
News25 minutes agoHouse votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoPolice investigate deadly stabbing in Tarzana; suspect in custody
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoDetroit Tigers sweep Tampa Bay Rays in win as Dillon Dingler stays hot
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoRetired San Francisco firefighter dies from lung cancer after Blue Shield denies treatment claims
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoTrackdown: Dallas 7-Eleven robbery suspect wanted
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoThis new Italian restaurant in Brickell only has 10 items on the menu
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoVisiting Boston this summer? Here are 8 navigation tips you need to know.
-
Denver, CO3 hours agoDenver-ish Central Market? RiNo food hall vendors claim they’ve been pushed out
