I haven't yet seen an argument for non-competes that applied to non C-suites and wasn't already heavily covered by IP law. Is the problem at hand anything more than a cash grab from abusive employers?<p>Back to the chevron thing though, how many of you have ever gotten a parking ticket? Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable to drive. Driving is a privilege, and the state will no longer grant that privilege to you.<p>Is that decision fair? You already went through the court system (or otherwise paid it off (implicitly, often explicitly, pleading guilty)), a judge took the time to judge your misdeeds, and you had some penalty applied, perhaps the max allowed by the law. Now though, some part of the executive branch wants to ignore any judicial action and assert their opinions.<p>Even before this ludicrous supreme court case, that was a thing that happened. A whole office in Minnesota is dedicated to extra-judicial traffic rulings above and beyond what the judge thought was reasonable.<p>I think it's wrong. Empower somebody like the FAA to make fast decisions when there are actually lives at stake, but everything else which could reasonably be judged one way or the other should go through somebody capable of judging it (maybe...a judge). Even FAA rulings probably ought to be vetted once they're less time sensitive.