USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 65 of 97
Exch. Corp. , 775 F. Supp. 767, 779 (D.N.J. 1991) (CEA authorizes “ state officials to apply any state or federal law against persons engaged in ‘ off- exchange ’ c ommodities trading”). Nothing about International Paper suggests the savings clause applies more broadly. Indeed, although the statute in International Paper contained no express-preemption provision
and preserved suits “under any statute or common law, ” the Court
nonetheless found preemption, explaining that Congress did not intend to
undermine the “ carefully drawn statute through a general saving clause. ”
479 U.S. at 484-485, 494 (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1365(e)). The same is true here. Third , the district court relied on certain provisions in Section 16, but
those provisions again undercut the court’s conclusion. Section 16(e)
provides that the CEA does not “preempt” the application of a “State statute” to “ any transaction in or involving any commodity ... that is not conducted on or subject to the rules of a [DCM] .” 7 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1) (emphasis added).
The district court dismissed this provision as “ about recalcitrant exchanges
that refuse to register with the CEA. ” JA167. But that confuses subsection
(C) of Section 16(e)(1) — which allows state regulation of exchanges that
refuse to register — with subsection (B) — which allows state regulation of off-
DCM transactions. And the only plausible interpretation of subsection (B) is that the CEA does preempt the application of state law to transactions that
50
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs