Case: 25-7187, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 37.2, Page 33 of 41
be an activity that is unlawful under any state law. “Congress’s intent was to provide the CFTC with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate commodities” and “[s]uch exclusive jurisdiction precludes states from exercising supplementary regulatory authority over commodity transactions.” Stuber v. Hill , 170 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1151 (D. Kan. 2001). This is not a new or novel concept. For decades courts have recognized that the CEA preempts application of other federal or state laws to instruments trading on CFTC-regulated markets. 14 Again, this is part and parcel of Congress’s intent 14 See Chi. Mercantile Exch. v. SEC , 883 F.2d 537, 544, 548 (7th Cir. 1989) (recognizing that the CFTC is “the sole lawful regulator” where “its jurisdiction is exclusive”--i.e., if the at-issue derivative falls within Section 2(a)(1)(A)’s reach); Point Landing, Inc. v. Omni Cap. Int’l, Ltd. , 795 F.2d 415, 422 (5th Cir. 1986), aff'd sub nom . Omni Cap. Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co ., 484 U.S. 97 (1987) (finding the CEA preempted private rights of action under securities laws because “[a]ny other result would frustrate the intent of Congress to preempt the field insofar as futures regulation is concerned.”); Curran v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. , 622 F.2d 216, 232 (6th Cir. 1980), aff’d , 456 U.S. 353 (1982) (“[T]he thrust of the [CEA’s exclusive-jurisdiction] provision was to ensure that regulatory bodies other than the CFTC would not interfere with the orderly development and enforcement of commodities regulation.”); Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Conaway , 515 F. Supp. 202, 205-06 (N.D. Ala. 1981) (holding that the CEA preempted private plaintiff’s counterclaim under Alabama gambling statute purporting to void all futures transactions in which delivery of the commodity is not intended); Int’l Trading, Ltd. v. Bell , 556 S.W.2d 420, 424 (1977) (finding the “vesting of exclusive jurisdiction is a clear indication that Congress intended no regulation in this field except under the authority of the [A]ct”); Texas v. Monex Int’l, Ltd ., 527 S.W.2d 804, 806 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975), writ refused (Dec. 17, 1975) (holding the CEA preempted Texas securities laws over margined commodity transactions).
23
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs