Governor Hochul Vetoes Bill Banning Non-Competes in New York
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.28.23
Governor Hochul vetoed a bill passed by the New York State legislature that would have effectively banned all non-compete agreements. In her December 26, 2023 veto message, Governor Hochul cited New York’s “highly competitive economic climate” and the “legitimate interests” of companies to “retain highly compensated talent,” while stating that she has “long supported limits on non-compete agreements for middle-class and low-wage workers.” The Governor observed as well that she had “proposed banning non-compete agreements for anyone making below the median wage in New York” in her first Executive Budget. Governor Hochul stated that she remains open to “future legislation that achieves the right balance.”
New York employers may continue to require employees to sign non-compete agreements as a condition of employment. Non-compete agreements that are overly broad, however, may be deemed unenforceable by courts under New York law. Therefore, employers covered by New York law should continue to ensure that their non-compete agreements satisfy New York’s applicable requirements, such as extending only to the extent necessary to protect legitimate business interests, reflecting restrictions that are reasonable in time, geographic reach and otherwise, not being unreasonably burdensome to the employee, and avoiding harm to the general public.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
