Case 2:25-cv-01541-JCM-DJA Document 7 Filed 08/19/25 Page 23 of 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Commission) would preempt the field insofar as futures regulation is concerned. Therefore, if any substantive State law regulating futures trading was contrary to or inconsistent with Federal law, the Federal law would govern. In view of the broad grant of authority to the Commission to regulate the futures trading industry, the Conferees do not contemplate that there will be a need for any supplementary regulation by the States.” H.R. Rep. No. 93-1383, at 35-36 (1974) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5894, 5897; see also Hofmayer , 459 F. Supp. at 737 (finding field preemption from the CEA and dismissing claims brought under preempted federal and state statutes). As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, “the statute’s legislative history repeatedly emphasizes that the CFTC’s jurisdiction was ‘to be exclusive with regard to the trading of futures on organized contract markets .’” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Ken Roberts Co. , 276 F.3d 583, 590-91 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting S. Rep. No. 93-1131, at 23 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5843, 5863) (emphasis in original). “The passage of 7 U.S.C. § 2 is intended to clarify ‘the preemption of all other would-be regulators at every level of government.’” Witzel , 490 F. Supp. at 347 (quoting Jones , 466 F. Supp. at 219). Likewise, the history surrounding the adoption of the “special rule” concerning event contracts in 2010 makes it clear that Congress intended the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction to embrace event contracts. See 156 Cong. Rec. S5906-07 (daily ed. July 15, 2010) (statements of Sens. Lincoln and Feinstein). Congressional statements about the creation of the CFTC confirm the intent for broad express or implied field preemption. The 1974 amendments to the CEA were motivated by concerns that states “might step in to regulate the futures markets themselves” and create “conflicting regulatory demands.” KalshiEx , 2025 WL 1073495, at *6 (quoting Am. Agric. Movement, Inc. , 977 F.2d at 1155-56); see also Mallen v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. , 605 F. Supp. 1105, 1112 (N.D. Ga. 1985) (“The congressional hearings focused on the need for sole regulatory power of commodities to be placed in one federal agency, unlike the regulation of securities which is shared by a federal agency and state agencies.”). Establishing the CFTC and endowing it with exclusive jurisdiction was meant to “avoid unnecessary, overlapping and duplicative regulation.” Ken Roberts Co. , 276 F.3d at 588 (quoting 120 Cong.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
16
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs