Case 1:25-cv-12578-RGS Document 1 Filed 09/15/25 Page 17 of 28
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 regard to
the trading of futures on organized contract markets .’” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Ken Roberts Co. ,
276 F.3d 583, 590-91 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting S. Rep. No. 93-1131, at 23 (1974), reprinted in
1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5843, 5863) (emphasis in original). “The passage of 7 U.S.C. § 2 is intended
to clarify ‘the preemption of all other would-be regulators at every level of government.’” Witzel
v. Chartered Sys. Corp. of N.Y. , 490 F. Supp. 343, 347 (D. Minn. 1989) (quoting Jones v. B. C.
Christopher & Co. , 466 F. Supp. 213, 219 (D. Kan. 1979)). Likewise, the history surrounding
the adoption of the “special rule” concerning event contracts in 2010 makes it clear that
Congress intended the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction to embrace event contracts. See 156 Cong.
Rec. S5906-07 (daily ed. July 15, 2010) (statements of Sens. Lincoln and Feinstein).
48.
Congressional statements about the creation of the CFTC confirm the
intent for broad express or implied field preemption. The 1974 amendments to the CEA were
motivated by “concerns that states might regulate futures markets” themselves and create
17
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs