A federal judge in Texas yesterday set aside the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) ban on non-compete agreements and blocked its enforcement. The Non-Compete Clause Rule, which was to take effect on September 4, prohibited employers from entering new non-compete agreements with workers and required the recission of existing non-compete clauses.
U.S. District Judge Ada Brown ruled that the FTC lacked the authority to enact the ban, saying it was “unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation” and violated the federal Administrative Procedures Act.
The ruling is a significant blow for the FTC, which had argued that non-competes harm workers and depress wages. The commission estimated in its final rule that some 30 million American workers are subject to post-employment non-competes. In response to the court’s decision, the FTC said it would still look to protect employees through case-by-case enforcement actions.
The FTC also is expected to appeal the court’s decision to the conservative, business-friendly U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appellate review is likely, because a federal judge in Pennsylvania sided preliminarily with the FTC a few weeks ago, while another federal judge in Florida initially ruled against the commission. Neither the Pennsylvania nor Florida cases have been finally decided.
“Yesterday’s decision reflects the power of the federal courts to overrule agency actions now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Chevron doctrine,” said ILMA CEO Holly Alfano.
Judge Brown cited the Supreme Court ruling in her decision.
The court’s ruling effectively restores the status quo by removing the federal regulatory floor for non-compete agreements. However, the decision does not affect state laws that regulate post-employment restrictive covenants. As noted by the court, “States have historically regulated non-competes through caselaw and statute.” Because a number of states have laws that limit the use of non-compete clauses, ILMA General Counsel Jeff Leiter recommends that members should continue to be thoughtful about narrowly tailoring non-competes, non-solicitation, confidentiality agreements and other post-employment restrictive covenants in these jurisdictions.
Update (Sept. 18, 2026): On September 16, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction blocking New Mexico’s PFAS product labeling regulation, which […]
A federal district court has upheld Oregon’s packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) law against constitutional challenges brought by the National Association of […]
What Happened The 50% tariffs on certain Canadian goods are now in effect, including duties on some lubricant additives imported into the […]
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Manage your cookie preferences below:
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
Google Tag Manager simplifies the management of marketing tags on your website without code changes.
These cookies are used for managing login functionality on this website.
WPForms is a user-friendly WordPress plugin for creating custom forms with drag-and-drop functionality.
Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us understand how visitors use our website.
Google Analytics is a powerful tool that tracks and analyzes website traffic for informed marketing decisions.
Service URL: policies.google.com (opens in a new window)
You can find more information in our Privacy Policy and .