Case 1:25-cv-02152-ESK-MJS Document 15 Filed 04/18/25 Page 34 of 51 PageID: 155
24 but neither concerns field preemption. See Slaney v. The Int’l Amateur Athletic Fed’n , 244 F.3d 580, 594–96 (7th Cir. 2001) (conflict preemption for U.S. Olym- pic Committee’s “exclusive jurisdiction” over eligibility determinations); BNSF Ry. Co. v. Cal. Dep’t of Tax & Fee Admin. , 904 F.3d 755, 765–66 (9th Cir. 2018) (conflict preemption for “exclusive” jurisdiction provision that preempted state and local regulation of rail activity, but not other laws of general applicability). And Kalshi’s cases interpreting the CEA do not support field preemption. PI Br. 16. Each merely establishes that the CEA gives the CFTC—as opposed to other agencies like the SEC—exclusive jurisdiction over the trading of deriv- ative contracts on designated contract markets. And each predates the 2010 amendment to add “swaps” to the exclusive-jurisdiction provision. See Ken Rob- erts Co. , 276 F.3d at 588 (exclusive-jurisdiction provision was meant to avoid duplicative regulation, especially between SEC and CFTC); Taylor v. Bear Stearns & Co. , 572 F. Supp. 667, 674 (N.D. Ga. 1983) (“state statutes that entail admin- istrative agency involvement … might conflict with the CFTC’s regulatory role”); Jones v. B.C. Christopher & Co. , 466 F. Supp. 213, 219 (D. Kan. 1979) (de- scribing “spat between the CFTC and SEC concerning the frontiers of their re- spective jurisdictions” as basis for CFTC exclusive jurisdiction)); Hofmayer v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc ., 459 F. Supp. 733, 737 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (exclusive-juris- diction provision preempted federal or state securities law for commodity fu- tures); Bartels v. Int’l Commodities Corp ., 435 F. Supp. 865, 868–69 (D. Conn. 1977) (CFTC exclusive jurisdiction stemmed from Congress’s dissatisfaction with commodities regulation under existing securities laws); Int’l Trading Ltd. v.
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs