The Federal Trade Commission must decide by July 10 whether it will continue defending the nationwide ban on most non-compete clauses that the agency adopted under former chair Lina Khan. Current chair Andrew Ferguson, appointed by President Donald Trump, previously called the rule an “extraordinary assertion of authority,” and legal observers say the agency is unlikely to press its appeal in the Fifth Circuit. The FTC has estimated the prohibition would boost U.S. wages by about $400 billion over a decade. Uncertainty in Washington has pushed states and courts to chart their own—often divergent—paths. Four states now maintain complete bans on non-competes, while at least 30 others have adopted partial or sector-specific limits in the past two years, including new restrictions approved this year in Wyoming and health-care curbs in Arkansas, Indiana and Colorado. Local initiatives are also advancing, such as a proposed citywide ban in New York City. Florida moved in the opposite direction. The Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act took effect on July 1 after becoming law without Governor Ron DeSantis’s signature on July 3. Backed by Citadel founder Ken Griffin, the measure lengthens permissible non-compete periods to as much as four years for high-earning employees and tightens standards for dissolving injunctions. Courts are likewise revisiting the issue. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state’s 2018 Non-competition Agreement Act does not apply to forfeiture clauses, potentially widening employers’ options, while Delaware’s Chancery Court narrowed the circumstances under which companies can enforce traditional covenants in the North American Fire and Payscale cases. The patchwork underscores the stakes of the FTC’s pending decision and leaves employers and workers facing sharply different rules depending on jurisdiction.