Mississippi Non-Compete Laws (2026): Are Non-Competes Enforceable?

Mississippi courts enforce employee non-competes that are reasonable, but they do not favor them. Our research found no Mississippi statute governing employee non-competes, so the rule comes from the Mississippi Supreme Court: in Empiregas, Inc. of Kosciusko v. Bain (1992) and Kennedy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (2000), the court held that enforceability turns largely on the reasonableness and specificity of the restriction's duration and geographic scope, and that the employer bears the burden of proving it is reasonable.

Bills to ban non-competes for health care providers were filed in 2024, 2025 and 2026, and each died in committee. For how other states treat these agreements, see our non-compete laws by state guide.

Information last verified on 2026-10-08. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Mississippi's court-made rule on employee non-competes, as set out by the Mississippi Supreme Court, and the 2024-2026 health care bills, with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see Mississippi trade secret laws) or severance pay (see Mississippi severance pay laws).

Are non-competes enforceable in Mississippi?

They can be, if a court finds them reasonable. Mississippi has no statute on the subject that our research found, so the answer comes from case law. The Mississippi Supreme Court stated the core test in Kennedy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 759 So. 2d 362 (Miss. 2000):

"The validity and the enforceability of a non-competition agreement are largely predicated upon the reasonableness and specificity of its terms, primarily, the duration of the restriction and its geographic scope." Kennedy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 759 So. 2d 362 (Miss. 2000)

The court has also long said these covenants are disfavored. In Frierson v. Sheppard Building Supply Co., 247 Miss. 157, 154 So. 2d 151 (1963), it described restrictive employment covenants as "in restraint of trade and individual freedom and are not favorites of the law," while holding that they are valid unless unreasonable.

"Not favored" does not mean void. A Mississippi court will enforce a covenant it finds reasonable.

What makes a Mississippi non-compete reasonable

The Mississippi Supreme Court looks at these points:

In Empiregas, Inc. of Kosciusko v. Bain, 599 So. 2d 971 (Miss. 1992), the court quoted its earlier rule that such a covenant is valid only "within such territory and during such time as may be reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer" and "without imposing undue hardship on the employee."

No Mississippi statute sets a maximum length or distance. Each covenant is judged on its own terms and facts.

In Wiggins v. Southern Securities Group, LLC (Miss. Dec. 4, 2025), the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed a preliminary injunction enforcing a non-compete in an LLC operating agreement that the departing owner signed together with the contract selling his interest in the business.

No salary threshold or profession-specific statute

Our research found no Mississippi income threshold and no statute setting special non-compete rules for physicians or any other profession. Health care non-compete bans have been proposed three years in a row, and each one failed (see the bills section below).

Signing a non-compete after you start work

In Frierson, the employee had been manager for over two years when he signed a non-compete to keep his job. The Mississippi Supreme Court said that if he "had been discharged shortly after signing the restrictive agreement, this Court would probably hold the agreement was not supported by consideration." Because he worked more than four more years and drew about $200,000 in salary and bonuses, "the actual continuation of employment and the receipt by appellant of these large sums of money as compensation therefor, supplied any lack of consideration." Our research found no Mississippi statute adding notice, waiting-period or other signing requirements.

Age matters in Mississippi, where people under 21 are legally minors. In Watercolor Salon, LLC v. Hixon (Miss. Dec. 1, 2022), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a non-compete signed by a 20-year-old, which she later disaffirmed, was unenforceable against her.

If you are fired or laid off

How the job ended can matter in Mississippi. In Empiregas, the court held that when the chancellor finds that "the employee's termination was arbitrary, capricious or in bad faith, he can 'lend the hand of equity' in refusing to enforce the agreement." In that case, the chancellor had found that the employee was fired without cause and that the non-compete was not enforceable. The court added that "when an employer terminates an employee in bad faith, the terms of a non-competition agreement will not be enforced." By contrast, in Frierson the chancellor found the employee was fired for just cause, and the covenant was enforced.

Whether a firing was arbitrary or in bad faith is a fact question for the chancellor. Being laid off or fired does not by itself void a Mississippi non-compete, and the result depends on the facts the chancellor finds. For how firing works in the state generally, see Mississippi at-will employment laws.

What a court does with an overbroad non-compete

Mississippi courts can enforce an overbroad covenant to the extent it is reasonable. In Redd Pest Control Co. v. Heatherly, 248 Miss. 34, 157 So. 2d 133 (1963), a statewide restriction was unreasonable as applied to an employee who worked around Tupelo, and the Mississippi Supreme Court held there was "no sound reason why the contract should not be enforced to the extent that it is reasonable," sending the case back for an injunction limited to Tupelo and 50 miles around it.

Courts are less willing to repair vague wording. In Allen & Smith Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Merrill (Miss. Ct. App. May 20, 2025), a divided Court of Appeals declined to strike ambiguous terms to save non-compete and non-solicitation clauses, saying it "is not in the business of drafting contracts after the fact," and affirmed a ruling that they were unenforceable. In Frierson, the Mississippi Supreme Court also refused to extend an injunction past the contract's own two-year term, because the contract itself measures the restriction in scope and time.

Customer non-diversion and non-solicitation clauses

In Kennedy, the employer sued under an 18-month clause barring the former employee from diverting customers. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the chancery court's award of damages and attorney fees to the employer and dismissed the employer's complaint. The court said a clause that prohibits an ex-employee from accepting business with former customers "may, in appropriate cases," be enforceable, but held this clause ambiguous because it did not expressly prohibit accepting such business, and ruled that the employer, which drafted it, "should bear the burdens of the agreement's ambiguities."

Our research found no Mississippi statute that separately governs non-solicitation clauses or confidentiality agreements.

Health care non-compete bills that failed

Mississippi lawmakers have tried three times to ban non-competes for health care providers. None passed:

Because all three died, no health care non-compete statute is in force. Our research scanned the official 2024, 2025 and 2026 bill caption lists for non-compete and restrictive-covenant terms and found only these three bills; that search read bill titles, not full bill text.

How this page established that there is no statute

The statement that Mississippi has no non-compete statute is a research finding with limits. Our researcher searched a copy of the Mississippi Code with several queries and scanned 2024-2026 bill captions on the Legislature's official site, but did not walk every title and chapter of the Code. The Mississippi Supreme Court decisions above, which decide these cases under common law, are consistent with that finding.

The FTC rule and Mississippi non-competes

The FTC's nationwide non-compete rule never took effect. A federal court in Texas set it aside on August 20, 2024 (Ryan, LLC v. FTC, No. 3:24-CV-00986-E, N.D. Tex.), the FTC voted on September 5, 2025 to dismiss its appeals, and the FTC removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026. The FTC still acts case by case, for example approving a final order on June 22, 2026 that required a pest-control company to stop enforcing non-competes. More detail: FTC non-compete ban struck down and our non-compete laws by state guide.

Non-competes and trade secrets

A non-compete is a contract term; trade-secret protection is a separate body of law that does not depend on one. See Mississippi trade secret laws.

Questions this page does not answer yet

Our research did not verify Mississippi rules on the following, so this page does not state a rule on them:

• whether a Mississippi court will honor an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clause;
• the separate professional-conduct rule on practice restrictions for lawyers.

Our research found no state agency that handles non-compete disputes; they are decided by the courts, and both Empiregas and Kennedy began in chancery court.

If you have been asked to sign

Because Mississippi decides these cases on reasonableness, with the burden on the employer, whether a particular agreement holds up depends on its length, territory, the interest it protects and, if you were let go, the circumstances of the firing. A lawyer licensed in Mississippi can review a specific agreement against those factors.

Related

• Non-compete laws by state
• Mississippi trade secret laws
• Mississippi severance pay laws
• Mississippi at-will employment laws
• FTC non-compete ban struck down

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Mississippi non-compete law as set out in Mississippi Supreme Court decisions, not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. For advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in Mississippi.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in Mississippi?

They can be. The Mississippi Supreme Court enforces a non-compete it finds reasonable, judged mainly by its duration and geographic scope, with the burden of proof on the employer (Empiregas, 1992; Kennedy, 2000).

Does Mississippi have a non-compete statute?

Our research found none. Mississippi non-compete cases are decided under Mississippi Supreme Court precedent, and bills to ban health care non-competes in 2024, 2025 and 2026 all died in committee.

Can I be held to a Mississippi non-compete if I was fired?

Possibly. Empiregas (1992) says a non-compete will not be enforced when the employer fired the employee in bad faith, but in Frierson (1963) a covenant was enforced after a firing the chancellor found was for just cause. Whether a firing was arbitrary or in bad faith is a fact question for the chancellor.

Is continued employment enough consideration for a non-compete in Mississippi?

It can be. In Frierson (1963), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that more than four years of continued employment and about $200,000 in pay after signing supplied any lack of consideration, and said it would probably find no consideration if the employee had been fired shortly after signing.

Who has to prove a Mississippi non-compete is reasonable?

The employer. The Mississippi Supreme Court places the burden of proving reasonableness on the employer seeking enforcement (Empiregas, 1992; Kennedy, 2000).

Are doctor non-competes banned in Mississippi?

No. HB 500 (2026), HB 806 (2025) and HB 889 (2024) would have banned post-termination practice restrictions for health care providers, but each died in committee.

How long can a non-compete last in Mississippi?

No statute sets a limit. Courts judge each covenant's duration and territory for reasonableness, and in Frierson (1963) the court would not extend an injunction past the contract's own two-year term.

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in Mississippi?

No. A federal court set the FTC rule aside on August 20, 2024, and the FTC removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026.