By Sam Peak

Other states have opted to pass more incremental reforms. Tennessee, for example, initially tried to ban noncompetes for in the state, but ultimately settled for passing legislation banning them for employees earning less than . Similarly, Louisiana prohibiting noncompetes for interns and apprentices. Virginia also passed legislation for employees terminated without cause.��

While banning noncompetes for only vulnerable workers may seem like a sensible compromise, excluding higher-income professionals causes states to lose out on the lion’s share of economic benefits that come with a full ban. When free from noncompetes, top earners don’t just switch jobs, they also create jobs by launching their own startups.

Another common trend is for states to limit noncompete reform to specific industries or occupations. In addition to limiting noncompetes for laid-off employees, Virginia also for all licensed healthcare workers in the state, as did . Utah banned noncompetes both for and .

Other states have pursued more niche bans. Nebraska a law preventing healthcare staffing agencies from using noncompetes, while New Hampshire its law to prohibit them for physician assistants — an occupation previously excluded from the state’s healthcare worker ban. Iowa that only banned noncompetes for healthcare employees working at University of Iowa facilities. Maryland, meanwhile, for licensed architects — but only if the employer has at least 30 workers and has moved out of the state.��

While many of the noncompete reforms passed this year are limited victories, lawmakers can build on these wins next year with even bolder reforms. The Utah legislature, for example, has listed noncompetes as an , indicating that the issue is likely to be a priority for the next legislative session. The other states that have passed noncompete reforms should also pursue follow-up legislation that covers additional workers.

After all, even Washington’s complete ban on noncompetes was accomplished through a piecemeal approach across two pieces of legislation. The first bill was passed in 2020 and only banned noncompetes for employees earning less than $100,000.^[2] Despite initial concerns that workers subject to the ban could leak trade secrets, these fears proved . Shortly thereafter, Microsoft, one of the state’s largest employers, for most of its workers. Eventually, the momentum generated by the $100,000 ban emboldened state lawmakers to finish the job and enact a ban for all workers, regardless of income.��

Washington’s case is instructive. Implementing limited noncompete bans can serve as a vital first step toward a more comprehensive policy. As evidence mounts showing that noncompete clauses harm economic dynamism, all roads should eventually lead towards full bans.��

Explore the interactive map of current state noncompete laws,��a searchable tracker of proposed noncompete reform bills in state legislatures across the country, and an interactive state-level dashboard that explores how income thresholds affect who’s exempt from noncompete bans.

Nearly one in five workers in the United States are bound by a noncompete agreement preventing them from finding a new job or starting a business in their field when they leave their employer. Noncompetes are currently governed at the state level, and as a growing body of research shows that noncompetes suppress wages, reduce job mobility, and stifle innovation, states are moving rapidly to restrict them. Currently, four states ban the use of noncompetes entirely and 34 states plus DC restrict their use.

Explore the state map below to see where noncompete agreements are currently fully banned, where their enforceability is limited, and where they are allowed.��

 

The map above summarizes statutory restrictions placed on noncompetes in each state and sorts states into four broad categories. “Full ban” states do not allow any noncompetes in an employment context but may have exceptions for the dissolution of a partnership or the goodwill sale of a business. “Income ban” states use an income threshold to determine which employees may be subject to noncompetes and may or may not have additional restrictions. “Other restrictions” include any industry-specific bans, statutory limits to the scope of agreements, or any other limits on noncompetes short of a full ban that are not based on income. “No restrictions” states have no laws on the books defining when a noncompete is valid, except for undefined requirements that they are “reasonable” or in writing. Many states, including some states listed as “no restrictions,” have additional limits on noncompetes based solely on case law. These restrictions are not included in the map, as they may change subject to judicial reinterpretation. Some states have additional process requirements for a noncompete to be valid and enforceable, i.e., that an agreement must be in writing or an employee must have a certain number of days to review a noncompete before signing. Though it is important that workers have time to review any agreement they sign, these requirements do not restrict when a worker may be prevented from working or starting a business in their field and are therefore not included in the map.

Understanding the Effects of Noncompete Income Exemptions

Previous research from 91PORN highlights the importance of including high-earning professionals in any noncompete reform to ensure that the public benefits from the jobs, inventions, and services they create when uninhibited by these restrictions. While some proposed noncompete bans exempt employees earning above a certain salary, 91PORN believes that such earning thresholds should be at a high enough income percentile so that state residents can reap more of the benefits that would have come with a full noncompete ban. Explore the dashboard below to view the occupations and demographic characteristics of workers in each state who would be excluded under a noncompetes ban proposed at varying income levels:

Proposed State Noncompete Reform Bill Tracker

Over the last few years, lawmakers at the state level have shown increasing interest in curbing the use of noncompetes in their state. However, as noncompete reform has gained traction, some states have pushed back by introducing bills to expand their use. The table below summarizes the bills related to noncompete agreements that have been introduced or seen action in state legislatures in 2026. It was updated as of January 2026.

The table sorts proposed bills into six broad categories:

• Complete or near complete bans, which would eliminate all noncompetes in an employment context within the state
• Income thresholds that prohibit noncompete agreements for workers making below a certain amount
• Healthcare industry bans that would eliminate noncompetes for certain types of healthcare workers (healthcare industry bans are in a separate category due to the high volume of healthcare specific legislation in state legislatures)
• Industry bans that would prohibit noncompetes for an entire category of worker (excluding the healthcare industry)
• Other bills, which may include changes or clarifications to the legal basis for a noncompete, the definition of a noncompete agreement, or steps an employer must take to enforce a noncompete, but do not exempt an entire class of workers from noncompete agreements.
• Expansions that would repeal an existing ban on noncompetes or make it easier for an employer to enforce a noncompete.

Click on the top of each column to sort the list alphabetically.