USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 44 of 97
Congress enacted this carveout because it “wanted the power to enforce the CEA with respect to organized exchanges to remain solely in the CFTC. ” Van Wart, supra , at 708. Similarly, the 1982 amendments make clear that the statute shall not “supersede or preempt” the application of state law to transactions “ not conducted on” a DCM or to entities who are “required to
be registered” as a DCM but “fail or refuse” to do so. 7 U.S.C. § 16(e)( 1)
(emphasis added). The only coherent inference of specifying no preemption as to off-DCM transactions is that Congress did intend preemption as to on-
DCM transactions.
Congress again made clear in 2006 that it understood the CEA
specifically to preempt state gambling laws as applied to on-DCM trading.
Just four years before Congress passed Dodd-Frank in 2010, it enacted the
Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act of 2006 (“UIGEA”), which
generally prohibits use of the internet to transmit wagers between states
“ where such bet or wager is unlawful ,” 31 U.S.C. § 5362(10)(A), but provides that the term “bet or wager” “ does not include ” transaction s conducted on “ a registered entity … under the Commodity Exchange Act, ” id. § 5362(1)(E)
(emphasis added). UIGEA thus underscores Congress’s understanding that,
under the CEA, state gambling laws do not reach trading on DCMs.
29
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs