USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 21 of 97
Those efforts resulted in the Grain Futures Act of 1922, which sought
to centralize futures trading on federally approved “contract market [s]. ” 42
Stat. 998, 1000-02. The Grain Futures Act intentionally declined to preempt
state laws, including state gambling laws. Thus, in 1933, the Supreme Court
upheld the application of a “Missouri law making gambling in grain futures illegal. ” Dickson v. Uhlmann Grain Co. , 288 U.S. 188, 198 (1933). B. Congress Passes The CEA And Grants The CFTC Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Trading On DCMs. In 1936, Congress passed the Commodity Exchange Act, which
subjected additional types of futures to the framework governing grain
futures and added anti-fraud protections for futures market participants. 49
Stat. 1491, 1492-99. But Congress again stopped short of comprehensive
federal regulation. It preserved “any State law applicable” to “transaction [s] ” regulated by the Act. Id. at 1494 . The drafters’ “intention” at that point was
“not to occupy the field.” H. R. Rep. No. 74-421, at 5 (1935). As markets
matured, however, that decision produced a patchwork of regulations,
leading exchanges to recommend that “federal policy … be uniform
throughout the United States” and not “subject to the vagaries” of different obligations in “different jurisdictions.” Hearings Before the H. Comm. on Agric. , 93d Cong. 121 (1973) [hereinafter “ House Hearings ”] .
6
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs