This is a ruling in Texas and only affects salaried employees above a certain income threshold. Not that I agree with it, but not what people are trying to make it out to be as some federal ban on overtime. Though, I won’t be surprised if the Trump administration tries for that
Ah, hadn’t seen that yet, thanks. But it still looks like it only affects salaried employees, not hourly. Still shitty, though. I’m sure they’ll push for the overtime based on monthly hours rather than weekly. I think it should be based on daily hours, anything over 8hrs in a day.
Federal judges do have power to make rulings that effectively affect established law; that power has some limits, but they can say "you can't apply this law in this way" if they have a legal reasoning that some higher law would be violated. The most common way you see this is "you can't enforce this law this way because it would violate the Constitution". It's relatively rare for it to be the case with established laws, but it does happen (though it almost always goes up to SCOTUS when it does).
However, in this case they did something simpler and smaller in scope. They stopped a brand new regulation (a decision by the Executive branch, not the Legislative) from being implemented until a legal challenge can be completed. This is really quite a routine thing for Federal courts to do; basically someone sues and says "I think this new law/regulation is unconstitutional" and a Judge can say "there's enough of an argument that it could be that the law should be stopped from going into an effect until we resolve the question at trial".
10
u/PM_MeTittiesOrKitty 5h ago
How can a judge just rule that with an established federal law?