Case 1:25-cv-14723 Document 1 Filed 08/19/25 Page 19 of 28 PageID: 19
contracts with the CFTC. See Cong. Rec. S5906-07 (daily ed. July 15, 2010) (statements of Sen. Lincoln conveying her intent and that of Sen. Dodd). 49. As further indication of Congressional intent that the CEA preempt broadly, during the amendment process for the 1974 amendments, the Senate considered adding but ultimately did not include a provision that retained the states’ jurisdiction over futures trading. See Kevin T. Van Wart, Preemption and the Commodity Exchange Act , 58 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 657, 687-88 (1982); see also 120 Cong. Rec. 30,464 (1974) (statements of Sens. Curtis and Talmadge). Congress therefore could not have intended States to regulate futures trading in parallel with the CFTC. 50. The regulatory scheme set out in the CEA, over which the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction, is comprehensive as it relates to designated and registered entities, and the existence of this comprehensive scheme further evinces Congressional intent to preempt the field and foreclose parallel state regulation. See Arizona v. United States , 567 U.S. 387, 401 (2012) (comprehensive statutory framework led to the conclusion that “the Federal Government has occupied the field” in the relevant area); La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC , 476 U.S. 355, 368-69 (1986) (“Pre-emption occurs . . . where Congress has legislated comprehensively, thus occupying an entire field of regulation and leaving no room for the States to supplement federal law . . . .”). Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the CEA establishes “a comprehensive regulatory structure to oversee the volatile and esoteric futures trading complex.” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran , 456 U.S. 353, 356 (1982) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 93-975, at 1 (1974)). 51. Accordingly, the CEA, as amended in 1974 to give the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction and in 2010 to add swaps and the special rule regarding event contracts, expressly or
19
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs