Case: 25-7187, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 37.2, Page 31 of 41
II. The CEA Preempts Other Federal and State Actors from Exercising Regulatory Authority Over Swaps, Including Event Contracts, on CFTC-Regulated Markets. CEA § 2(a)(1)(A)’s “exclusive jurisdiction” includes “transactions involving swaps” trading on a CFTC-registered DCM. The “exclusive jurisdiction” provision of 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1) preempts application of state gambling laws to event contracts trading on DCMs governed by the CEA, whether the question is evaluated as a matter of field preemption or conflict preemption. Congress intended the CFTC to have exclusive jurisdiction over federally registered DCMs and transactions conducted on those exchanges, displacing state gambling laws that would otherwise apply. A. The CEA Was Intended to, and Does, Occupy the Field of Regulating Commodity Derivatives Exchanges. Where Congress has declared federal authority to be exclusive, state laws attempting to regulate the same subject matter must give way. See Arizona v. United States , 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012); Hughes v. Talen Energy Mktg., LLC , 578 U.S. 150, 163 (2016); Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Pa. Env’t Hearing Bd. , 108 F.4th 144, 151-52 (3d Cir. 2024) (an “explicit statutory conferral of exclusive jurisdiction . . . withdraws any concurrent jurisdiction”), Richardson v. Kruchko & Fries, 966 F.2d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 1992) (state-law claims preempted where they fell within federal agency’s “exclusive jurisdiction”).
21
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs