Millions of American workers are subject to noncompete agreements, which can prevent workers from changing jobs or starting new businesses. In 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a rule making most noncompete agreements unenforceable. Ryan L.L.C., a tax services and software provider, challenged the rule banning noncompetes, arguing in part that the rule violates the “major questions doctrine.” Industry groups intervened in the case to challenge the rule. The District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Ryan L.L.C. The FTC appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and in January 2025, CAC filed an amicus brief in support of the FTC. Our brief makes three main points. 

First, we explain that under Supreme Court precedent, the major questions doctrine applies only in “extraordinary” cases, where an agency’s assertion of breathtaking new power reflects a dubious effort to transform the fundamental nature of its authority. More is needed to implicate the doctrine than economic and political significance alone; other factors must indicate that the agency is subverting congressional intent by seeking “an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion in its regulatory authority.” 

Second, we show that the requirements for applying the major questions doctrine are not satisfied in this case. Among other things, the FTC’s prohibition on noncompetes is not unprecedented and does not transform the authority Congress conferred on the FTC. Instead, the agency is exercising the same power it has always held under the FTC Act: using its expertise to identify and prevent unfair methods of competition. 

Third, we argue that extending the major questions doctrine to cases like this would undermine textualism and the separation of powers. We discuss how the major questions doctrine is in tension with textualism because it emphasizes pragmatic considerations outside the statutory text. The Supreme Court’s recent Loper Bright decision underscores that all statutes “have a single, best meaning,” and that ambiguity does not relieve courts “of their obligation to independently interpret” statutes using “the traditional interpretive tools.” A court may not short-circuit its inquiry into a statute’s best meaning simply because significant issues are at stake. We also explain that overuse of the major questions doctrine would undermine the separation of powers and thrust the courts beyond their proper role in interpreting the law. A presumption that Congress would not leave major decisions to agencies runs contrary to congressional practice dating to the Founding. If the judiciary starts to reject legislation precisely because it is important, it risks eroding the courts’ status as non-political arbiters of the law. 

Because the FTC’s noncompete rule does not meet the high standard the Supreme Court has prescribed for applying the major questions doctrine, and because applying the doctrine more widely would exacerbate its tensions with textualism and the separation of powers, the Fifth Circuit should decline to apply the doctrine and should uphold the FTC’s rule.