Case: 25-7187, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 37.2, Page 34 of 41
for the CEA to occupy the field of commodity derivatives, as the very purpose of the 74 Act was to “assure that Federal preemption is complete.” 120 Cong. Rec. S. 30,458, 30,464 (daily ed. Sept. 9, 1974) (statement of Sen. Curtis). That the instruments at issue here involve swaps on sports events does not change the preemption framework. 15 B. The “Savings Clause” in CEA § 2(a)(1)(A) Does Not Nullify its Field Preemptive Effect; It Preserves Traditional State Powers Over State- Regulated Gambling. The grant of “exclusive jurisdiction” in § 2(a)(1)(A) does not permit a state to define federally regulated derivatives transactions as illegal under state law. The “savings clause” in § 2(a)(1)(A) does not nullify this conclusion. Specifically, that subsection provides, “[e]xcept as hereinabove provided, nothing contained in this section shall (I) supersede or limit the jurisdiction at any time conferred . . . on . . . other regulatory authorities under the laws of the United States or of any State,” or “(II) restrict . . . such other authorities from carrying out their duties and responsibilities in accordance with such laws,” or “supersede or limit the jurisdiction conferred on courts of the United States or any State.”
15 Notably, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 specifically excludes transactions “conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity” under the CEA, reinforcing the field-preemptive effect of the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. 31 U.S.C. § 5362(1)(E)(ii).
24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs