USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 45 of 97
4. Precedent further reinforces this conclusion. By the time Congress
revisited the CEA in Dodd-Frank, courts of appeals had repeatedly and
uniformly agreed that the CEA’s exclusive jurisdiction over DCMs preempts other regulation. Leist , 638 F.2d at 322 ( “ the CEA preempts the application of state law”) ; Rasmussen v. Thomson & McKinnon Auchincloss Kohlmeyer, Inc. , 608 F.2d 175, 178 (5th Cir. 1979) (state-law “ commercial gambling ” claim could not proceed because “ the Commodity Exchange Act preempts all state laws inconsistent with its provisions ”); United States v. Brien , 617 F.2d 299, 310 (1st Cir. 1980) (“ Congress intended the CFTC to occupy the entire field of commodities futures regulation ”); FTC v. Ken Roberts Co ., 276 F.3d 583, 590-591 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (the CFTC’s jurisdiction is “exclusive with regard to the trading of futures on organized contract markets ”) ( citation omitted)); Am. Agric. , 977 F.2d at 1157 (state-law claims “are preempted by the CEA” as applied to “the operation of a contract market”); Chi. Mercantile Exch. v. SEC , 883 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1989) (where “the CFTC has jurisdiction, its power is exclusive”) . District courts and state courts of last resort agreed. E.g ., Jones v. B. C. Christopher & Co ., 466 F. Supp. 213, 220 (D. Kan. 1979) (“state regulatory agencies are likewise preempted by the ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ of the CFTC”); Int’l Trading, Ltd. v. Bell , 556 S.W.2d 420, 423 (Ark. 1977) (similar).
30
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs