USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 42 of 97
jurisdiction … withdraws any concurrent jurisdiction ”). The CFTC’s
exclusive jurisdiction over trading on DCMs is no different.
Other features of Section 2(a) ’s text underscore its preemptive effect.
Section 2(a) contains a savings clause preserving the jurisdiction of “other
regulatory authorities” under the laws “of any State.” 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A). C rucially, the clause applies “ [e]xcept as hereinabove provided ” by the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the CFTC. Id . (emphasis added). That language enables a “logical inference” of preemption as to matters within the CFTC’s jurisdiction. See Omnipoint Commc ’ ns, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach , 738 F.3d 192, 195-196 (9th Cir. 2013) (interpreting savings clause with an “ [e]xcept as provided ” proviso). Congress added the proviso specifically to
ensure that “the Commission’s jurisdiction, where applicable , supersedes
State as well as Federal agencies.” S. Rep. No. 93-1131, at 6.
2. The backdrop against which Congress regulated in 1974 confirms its
preemptive intent. When Congress considered the 1974 amendments, the
CEA did not “impair any State law applicable to any transaction” regulated
by the statute. 7 U.S.C. § 6c (1936). The Supreme Court had explained that without this proviso, the CEA would “ almost certainly conflict with state laws,” but that this proviso “serve[d] the function of preventing supersedure and preserving state control.” Rice v. Bd. of Trade of Chi. , 331 U.S. 247, 255
27
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs