Case: 25-7187, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 37.2, Page 21 of 41
provisions of the Act, thereby preempting any State regulatory laws.” H.R. Rep. No. 97-565, at 44-45 & 102-03 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3871, 3893-94 & 3951-52. First, the 82 Act clarified the procedures for states to pursue violations of the CEA’s anti-fraud provisions in state court. Second, the 82 Act clarified the role of states with respect to off-exchange futures transactions. Language was added to permit “criminal prosecution under any federal criminal statute” or the application of federal or state laws to off-exchange transactions or unregistered market participants. 82 Act, Pub. L. 97-444, § 229, 96 Stat. 2294, 2318 (1982). The broad preemption of other potentially applicable state or federal laws remained as to transactions on DCMs and as to market participants registered with the CFTC. See H.R. Rep. No. 97-565, at 44-45 & 102-103, 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3893-94, 3951-52. Adding again to the reasons for exclusive jurisdiction, the Committee report noted it “was done in recognition of the somewhat esoteric nature of the commodity futures markets and the desire to have knowledgeable and uniform enforcement of the Act” before ultimately concluding that “[t]he Committee . . . continues to support the idea of a single unified program of regulation and exclusive CFTC jurisdiction over exchange-traded futures.” In 1992, Congress began grappling with the advent of a new type of derivative financial product, swaps. In the Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992 (“92 Act”), Pub. L. 102-546, 106 Stat. 3590 (1992), Congress gave the CFTC
11
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs