USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 46 of 97
Commentators similarly recognized that the CEA “resulted in the
preemption of all other would-be regulators at every level of government. ” Philip F. Johnson, The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act: Preemption as Public Policy , 29 Vand. L. Rev. 1, 2 (1976) (authored by future CFTC Chairman); see also Rainbolt, supra , at 18 (authored by CFTC Commissioner); Van Wart, supra , at 721 ( “ the exclusive jurisdiction of the
CEA preempts state bucket-shop laws and other anti-gambling legislation ” ).
“As a matter of statutory construction, federal courts ‘presume that
Congress is knowledgeable about existing law pertinent to the legislation it enacts. ’” United States v. Perkins , 67 F.4th 583, 611 (4th Cir. 2023) (citation
omitted). When it returned to the CEA in 2010, Congress would have been
aware of the uniform interpretation of every court that had addressed
preemption. And Congress would have understood that confirming the
CFTC’s jurisdiction over event contracts preempted state law as applied to
trading those instruments on DCMs.
The CFTC shares this view. In separate litigation involving the CFTC’s
authority to regulate certain Kalshi event contracts, the CFTC recently
acknowledged that, “ due to federal preemption, event contracts never violate state law when they are traded on a DCM.” Appellant’s Br., KalshiEX v. CFTC , No. 24-5205 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 16, 2024); see Loper Bright Enters. v.
31
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs