Reclaim Democracy!

Archives for May 2024

Appreciating Recent Victories for Citizens and Consumers Against Corporations

by

May 2024

Amid much horrific news this month, some major victories for citizens over corporate power have received little attention. Among the recent victories delivered by federal civil service agencies:

Non-compete Agreements
Lina Khan, President Biden’s selection to chair the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), has emerged as a civil service superhero, and it’s been delightful to follow the reactions of corporate mouthpieces to Khan fulfilling her role as an advocate for the public. In April, the FTC voted to ban non-competition contracts (“non-competes”) that corporations often impose on employees that prevent them from leaving to work for any competitor. 

While such agreements may be legitimate in rare instances involving intellectual property issues, the practice has been wildly abused and applied to positions like fast-food service, where no legitimate purpose is served. Some 30 million U.S. workers today are trapped by such involuntary “contracts,” leading to:

  • Limiting entrepreneurship (workers often are banned from starting a business that overlaps in any way with their previous job).
  • Suppressing wages. If workers are not free to work where they choose, corporations gain power, including power over compensation. “Non-competes” restrict workers’ ability to find new employment opportunities within a given field.
  • “Job Lock.” Noncompete clauses make it tougher for workers to advance their careers by limiting job mobility within their field. 

The Biden Administration claims the non-compete ban will raise wages by $400 billion over the next decade once the ban takes effect in August. Corporate advocates like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed lawsuits to try stopping the rule from taking effect.

Credit Card Fees

In March, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finalized a rule limiting the penalty credit card corporations may impose for a single late payment to $8 (current averaging $32, exclusive of interest fees). It will take effect by late May, barring any successful legal challenge. 

The CFPB says late fees cost U.S. residents more than $14 billion a year and that 45 million Americans charged late fees will see an average savings of $220 a year.

The fee cap is part of the Biden administration’s campaign against “junk fees,” including air travel, event tickets and airline fees, which the FTC defines as “unnecessary, unavoidable or surprise charges that inflate costs while adding little to no value.“ The credit card fee cap also is under legal attack from financial corporations and their lobbying groups.

Blocking Anti-competitive Mergers

The FTC is joined by the Department of Justice in increasing vigilance over corporate mergers and acquisitions that would harm competition, small businesses, and consumers. A lawsuit by the DOJ succeeded in stopping the merger of JetBlue and Spirit Airlines, which would have reduced or eliminated competition on many travel routes.

Most recently (January 2024), the FTC sued to block a major hospital acquisition by Novant Health Corporation. The FTC said the merger would raise healthcare costs for patients and could likely harm quality of care.

While these wins have not fundamentally altered the power imbalance between citizens and corporations, they represent a sharp reversal from the last several presidential administrations. Let’s thank and encourage the people responsible for these actions while continuing to push for the  longer-term structural changes we’re working to achieve.

Key 2024 Supreme Court Cases — environment and democracy: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

by

Will a majority of Justices overturn a 40-year-old precedent to grab more power for itself and for corporations?

March 2024

On the surface Loper Bright is a dispute about fishing corporations challenging the power of the National Marine Fisheries Service to require them to pay the cost of observers who monitor companies’ compliance with federal fishery rules. But this seemingly narrow legal question actually could yield widely destructive consequences because the justices have opted to re-examine a 40-year-old precedent the court established in Chevron Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 

That precedent, widely known as the Chevron Doctrine, says state courts should defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of a law when the language is ambiguous or leaves discretion regarding implementation.

Chevron effectively says the civil servants with expertise in their field and who are accountable to an elected president should decide how to implement Congress’ mandates, rather than judges — a principle clearly rejected by the most regressive justices. Reversing this precedent would do enormous harm, stripping many federal agencies charged with protecting civil rights, consumers, and public health and safety; limiting pollution and environmental harm; and much more. 

Stripping the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to limit carbon emissions is one obvious industry target. 

Dozens of corporate and far-right advocacy groups are pushing the court to overturn Chevron and anoint federal courts as the arbiters of which federal regulations are proper. Such a ruling would invite floods of lawsuits challenging rules that limit or regulate corporate activities. Workplace safety rules, product safety regulations, and limiting emissions to abate the climate crisis are among the obvious targets.

Reversing Chevron also would undermine other core Unitarian Universalist values by enabling state politicians to challenge crucial federal civil rights and voting protections.

Congress is ill-equipped to manage the day-to-day administration of legislation it passes and necessarily must empower federal agencies to turn its broad directives into specific actions based on good-faith interpretations. Those actions remain subject to judicial oversight if any agency truly exceeds its authority. Accordingly, SCOTUS should uphold theChevron precedent and sustain the ability of civil servants to do their jobs effectively.

SCOTUS however, appears likely to at least weaken, if not overturn, the Chevron Principle, based on reports from oral argument.

Origin and Status: The case came on a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In October, the court also agreed to hear a second challenge to the Chevron Doctrine, Relentless v. Department of Commerce, which will be argued simultaneously with Loper v. Raimondo. 

Related: Edison Electric Institute v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC):  Other corporations also are pushing the Court to overrule Chevron and grant them more power. The Edison Electric Institute and the utility NorthWestern Energy seek to have a lower court ruling in favor of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission overturned. They object to approval of a FERC finding that a Montana solar and battery storage facility qualifies for incentives that encourage small renewable energy producers to upload power to the grid. No action has been taken by the Court as of April 2024.