Case: 25-7187, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 37.2, Page 20 of 41
states to bring actions for injunctive or monetary relief for specified violations of the CEA and to enforce their “general civil or criminal antifraud” statutes. See 78 Act, Pub. L. 95-405, § 15(7), 92 Stat. 865, 873 (1978). 5 Other than this explicit authorization of state authority, the CEA retained the broad preemption of state laws put in place in 1974. Proposals to carve off pieces of the CFTC’s “exclusive” jurisdiction were rejected, because “[t]he nature of the underlying commodity is not an adequate basis to divide regulatory authority.” S. Rep. No. 95-850, at 111- 12 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2087, 2110-11. Just because “a futures contract market does not fit into the traditional mold where there are both hedging and price-discovery functions should not be the determining factor in whether the contract is to be regulated by the CFTC.” Id . Congress also further added to the list of justifications supporting exclusive jurisdiction citing concerns over “costly duplication and possible conflict of regulation or over-regulation.” Id. The Futures Trading Act of 1982 (the “82 Act”) further clarified the scope of the CEA’s preemption of other federal and state laws and the role of the states in pursuing illegal or fraudulent off-exchange transactions, while still recognizing “the CFTC[‘s] exclusive jurisdiction to regulate futures trading and enforce the
5 This “Jurisdiction of the States” provision is now found in CEA Section 6d, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-2. The language of subsection (7) remains the same in the current version of the CEA.
10
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs