Seven is correct, this does not represent a new law, it just represents the new floor. I'm dumbfounded as to how the author and editor of the Dallas Biz Journal article can have such a profound misunderstanding of the law, so much so that the interpretation of the judges ruling is also very wrong. Also I have no idea why the idiot author mentioned Trump and Obama, how in the hell do you write for a business journal and not know that the Obama administration used the same method of amending the FLSA as the Bush administration did?
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/new-overtime-regulations-put-hold-us-federal-court-judge-enjoins-implementation-flsaThis article is much better, if you don't want to read the entire thing, here is the heart of the ruling
Judge Mazzant found that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, which could not be compensated by monetary damages. He further found that the balance of hardships favored an injunction, as the states would be required to spend substantial sums of unrecoverable public funds if the Final Rule were to go into effect, and implementation would interfere with government services and operations. Finally, Judge Mazzant found that the public interest would be served by an injunction, as implementation could significantly affect state budgets, cause layoffs, and disrupt governmental functions. He therefore concluded that a brief delay in implementation of the Final Rule—essentially, maintaining the status quo pending a trial in the merits—was warranted.
Essentially this is a stall because he bought the bullshit that it's actually going to break people, that isn't true. Doesn't matter though, this stunt has just bought little to no time. It's going to be tough to prove that the Obama administration overreached when there's precedent for what they did.
