USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 24 of 97
seeking injunctive or monetary relief for certain violations of the CEA .” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran , 456 U.S. 353, 366- 367 (1982); see 7 U.S.C. § 13a-2. In this amendment, however, Congress clarified that states’ authority extended only to suits against defendants “ other than a contract market , ” 7 U.S.C. § 13a-2(1) (emphasis added),
consistent with the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Congress returned to the CEA in 1982. Congress recognized that the
1974 amendments already “bestowed on the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction to
regulate futures trading [on DCMs] ... , thereby preempting any State
regulatory laws.” H.R. Rep. No. 97-565, pt. 1, at 44 (1982). But Congress
was concerned about “off - exchange commodities activities” and believed
“ S tates should be extensively involved in … policing transactions outside those preserved exclusively ” for the CFTC. Id. Congress was urged to implement “a partial lifting of the CEA’s preemption to permit” state anti- fraud laws “ against registered and unregistered commodity dealers except for contract markets .” S. Rep. No. 97-495, at 50 (1982) (emphasis added).
Congress responded by amending the CEA to add what is now Section
16(e)(1), clarifying that “[n]othing in this chapter shall supersede or preempt ” the application of state law to a transaction “ that is not conducted
on or subject to the rules ” of a federally licensed exchange or to “any person
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs