Case 2:25-cv-01541-JCM-DJA Document 1 Filed 08/19/25 Page 17 of 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
other stakeholders. These economic consequences include, among many other things, increased revenue from ticket sales, sponsorships and TV viewership for winning teams, and boosts in economic activity for cities where playoff games occur. 56. The CEA expressly grants the CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” over all “transactions involving swaps or contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery” that are “traded or executed on a contract market designated” by the CFTC. 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A). The CEA also includes a separate provision entitled “Special rule for review and approval of event contracts and swaps contracts,” which confirms that the CFTC has authority over “the listing of agreements, contracts, transactions, or swaps in excluded commodities that are based upon the occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency (other than [certain exemptions]), by a designated contract market or swap execution facility.” Id. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C)(i). The “special rule,” added by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 745(b), 124 Stat.at 1735-36, makes clear that the CEA’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the CFTC extends to event contracts. 57. To the extent the text of the statute leaves any doubt about preemption, the legislative history of the 1974 amendment to the CEA that established the CFTC confirms that this grant of exclusive jurisdiction was intended to preempt state law. As the Conference Committee explained, “[u]nder the exclusive grant of jurisdiction to the Commission, the authority in the Commodity Exchange Act (and the regulations issued by the Commission) would preempt the field insofar as futures regulation is concerned. Therefore, if any substantive State law regulating futures trading was contrary to or inconsistent with Federal law, the Federal law would govern. In view of the broad grant of authority to the Commission to regulate the futures trading industry, the Conferees do not contemplate that there will be a need for any supplementary regulation by the States.” H.R. Rep. No. 93-1383, at 35-36 (1974) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5894, 5897; see also Hofmayer v. Dean Witter & Co. , 459 F. Supp. 733, 737 (N.D. Cal. 1978). As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, “the statute’s legislative history repeatedly emphasizes that the CFTC’s jurisdiction was ‘to be exclusive with
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
17
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs