The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over the agency’s ban on noncompete agreements.

In the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Tyler, Texas, the Chamber argues that the FTC lacked the constitutional and statutory authority to advance the sweeping regulation. 

The Chamber said after the FTC’s 3-2 vote, which advanced with the support of the agency’s majority Democratic commissioners, that there are already legal frameworks for determining whether a given noncompete should be upheld or dismissed, and would undermine American businesses’ competitiveness.

The FTC on Tuesday released its final regulation banning noncompete agreements, which prohibit an employee from leaving their current company to work for a competitor and are more commonly used in more senior positions — though some retail and food service companies have also applied them to lower-level workers as well.

FTC VOTES TO BAN NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS

The rule, which takes effect in August, bans all new noncompetes as an unfair competitive practice. Existing noncompetes would be treated different for senior executives — defined by the FTC as workers in a “policy-making position” who earn over $151,164 annually — as they could remain in for senior executives, while noncompetes for other workers would become unenforceable.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Suzanne Clark said in a statement after the FTC’s vote Tuesday that the “decision to ban employer noncompete agreements across the economy is not only unlawful but also a blatant power grab that will undermine American businesses’ ability to remain competitive.”

FTC VOTES TO BAN NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS

“Since its inception over 100 years ago, the FTC has never been granted the constitutional and statutory authority to write its own competition rules. Noncompete agreements are either upheld or dismissed under well-established state laws governing their use,” Clark said. 

“Yet, today, three unelected commissioners have unilaterally decided they have the authority to declare what’s a legitimate business decision and what’s not by moving to ban noncompete agreements in all sectors of the economy,” she added.

LAWMAKER DEMANDS FTC PROBE TEMU PARENT COMPANY OVER ALLEGED CCP TIES

FTC spokesman Douglas Farrar told FOX Business in a statement, “Our legal authority is crystal clear. In the FTC Act, Congress specifically ’empowered and directed’ the FTC to prevent ‘unfair methods of competition’ and to ‘make rules and regulations for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of’ the FTC Act.”

“This authority has repeatedly been upheld by courts and reaffirmed by Congress. Addressing noncompetes that curtail Americans’ economic freedom is at the very heart of our mandate, and we look forward to winning in court,” Farrar added.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The Chamber’s lawsuit is one of several expected to be filed against the FTC rule, and comes after tax service firm Ryan LLC filed the first legal challenge on Tuesday in a different federal court in Texas.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Read More 

A moral and political cancer of antisemitism is metastasizing throughout so many of our colleges and universities, unleashing all manner of campus conflict and violence. 

Joe Biden is turning a blind eye. And Donald Trump has a plan to solve it. Mr. Biden says, “I condemn the antisemitic protests” — but then adds quickly, “I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.” 

That’s a complete cop-out. That is not even remotely a solution to the education breakdown in American higher learning. No one in politics has worked harder than Joe Biden in spreading the gospel of diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

But it is precisely the ultra-left gospel of DEI that has spawned this new wave of antisemitism. Mr. Biden won’t change a thing. Mr. Trump will. 

TRUMP SLAMS COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY FOR CLOSING CAMPUS AMID ANTI-ISRAEL PROTESTS: ‘MEANS THE OTHER SIDE WINS’

The former president wants to remove DEI from the federal bureaucracy writ large, especially the far-left federal Education Department. Mr. Trump also wants to use new accreditation standards that harken back to traditional American and western civilization and culture. 

In his video on Truth Social, he said, “When I return to the White House, I will fire the radical left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics.”

Mr. Trump would also tax endowments for non-compliance. He would also explore having colleges and universities “fined up to the entire amount of their endowment.” 

He will insist on a merit-based system to replace DEI. And he will also “direct the Department of Justice to pursue federal civil rights cases” against colleges and universities that “continue to engage in racial discrimination.”  

ANTISEMITISM ON CAMPUS SURGES AS AGITATORS TAKE OVER

Enforcing civil rights laws against discrimination is absolutely crucial here. Joe Biden never refers to this. But Jason Riley reminds us in his Wall Street Journal column that the current campus violence and conflict not only trespasses, blocks traffic, refusing police orders, and generally causing disorder and disturbance — but it is illegal. 

And he goes on to cite former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who sent in federal troops to stop the white mobs in Little Rock, Arkansas who were preventing black students from safely attending school, in defiance of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX BUSINESS APP

I quote Mr. Riley directly: “The federal government was obligated to come to the aid of an ethnic minority group being threatened by mob violence. Jews in 2024 deserve no less protection than blacks in 1957.” 

I couldn’t agree more.

This article is adapted from Larry Kudlow’s opening commentary on the April 24, 2024, edition of “Kudlow.”   

Read More 

New legislation being proposed in California would restrict the expedited security screening company Clear from operating in the state’s airports, as proponents say the service raises equity issues given it effectively lets wealthier people skip ahead of passengers waiting in line to be screened by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents. 

The bill, SB-1372, the first of its kind in the U.S., would require third-party vendors like Clear to get their own dedicated security lane or lose the ability to operate in California airports.

Clear charges members $189 per year to verify passengers’ identities at airports, allowing them to bypass TSA checkpoints. The service is in use at more than 55 airports across the U.S., as well as at dozens of sports stadiums and other venues, according to its website. Members verify their identity at Clear kiosks. It is separate to the TSA Pre-Check, although many Clear members use both services.  

TSA UNVEILS SELF-SERVICE SCREENING PROCESS: HERE’S HOW IT WORKS

State Sen. Josh Newman, a Democrat, is sponsoring the legislation.

“It’s a basic equity issue when you see people subscribed to a concierge service being escorted in front of people who have waited a long time to get to the front of TSA line,” Newman told CBS MoneyWatch. 

“Everyone is beaten down by the travel experience, and if Clear escorts a customer in front of you and tells TSA, ‘Sorry, I have someone better,’ it’s really frustrating.” 

Republican Sen. Janet Nguyen has expressed similar concerns but is not supporting the bill, a spokesperson tells Fox Business. 

“I do understand the frustration stated in Senator Newman’s bill,” Nguyen, who sits on the transportation committee, told Politico. “It becomes a haves vs. have-nots where those who can afford it jump in front of the rest of us. They even cut in front of TSA Pre-boarding pass travelers who have been screened by the TSA.”

Six major airlines — Delta, United, Southwest, Alaska, JetBlue and Hawaiian — are opposing the bill and wrote a letter to Senate Transportation Committee Chair Dave Cortese this month arguing its passage would result in revenue losses.

They wrote that the services were used more than 5 million times in California in 2023.

US PASSPORT PROCESSING TIMES BACK TO PRE-PANDEMIC NORMS, STATE DEPARTMENT SAYS

The airlines argued that the bill “not only threatens to increase fees on air carriers but also severely restricts airports’ ability to effectively manage lines at the security checkpoint, resulting in a negative travel experience for our California customers.”

A Clear spokesperson echoed the airline’s concerns.

“We will continue to work constructively with legislators as well as the federal government and our airport partners to ensure operations at California airports are as seamless and efficient as possible,” Ricardo Quinto said in a statement to Politico.

Supporters of the bill include the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA and the union representing Transportation Security Officers in Oakland, Sacramento and San Jose.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

“Clear is nothing more than the luxury resale of upcharge of space in the airport security queue, where those who pay can skip the line at the direct expense of every other traveler,” James Murdock, president of AFGE Local 1230, the TSA officer union’s local chapter, wrote in a separate letter to Cortese, according to CBS.

“While Clear may save time for its paying customers, non-customers suffer from Clear’s aggressive sales tactics and longer security queues while they enter an essential security screening process.” 

The bill was set to come before the California State Senate’s transportation committee on Tuesday.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This report has been updated to clarify the bill’s impact on Clear at California airports.

Read More