711 F.3d 155
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- FERC fined Hunter $30 million under the Natural Gas Act for alleged manipulation of natural gas futures.
- Hunter traded NYMEX natural gas futures, a CFTC-regulated market, while positioning to benefit from a price drop.
- FERC action followed a CFTC enforcement filing alleging manipulation under the Commodity Exchange Act.
- FERC asserted concurrent jurisdiction when manipulation affects gas markets; Hunter challenged FERC’s authority.
- Court held that CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction under CEA §2(a)(1)(A) over futures contracts and that EPAct 2005 does not repeal that jurisdiction by implication.
- Section 23 of EPAct 2005 requires coordination but preserves exclusive CFTC jurisdiction; no irreconcilable conflict established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CEA §2(a)(1)(A) covers manipulation of natural gas futures | Hunter/ CFTC: manipulation of futures falls within exclusive CFTC jurisdiction | FERC: manipulation in one market affecting another may be pursued by both agencies | Yes; §2(a)(1)(A) covers manipulation of futures contracts, giving CFTC exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether EPAct 2005 impliedly repeals §2(a)(1)(A) | CFTC/ Hunter: EPAct repealed exclusive jurisdiction by implication | FERC: EPAct complements CFTC jurisdiction | No implied repeal; EPAct does not clearly contradict §2(a)(1)(A) |
| Role of savings clause and information-sharing provision in EPAct | §717t-2(c) preserves CFTC jurisdiction | FERC relies on savings clause to justify overlap | Savings clause ambiguous; does not overcome the strong presumption against implied repeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strobl v. New York Mercantile Exchange, 768 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1985) (explains futures contracts and trading concepts)
- FTC v. Ken Roberts Co., 276 F.3d 583 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (limits of FTC vs CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over futures matters)
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (Supreme Court 1974) (implied repeal requires clear manifest intent)
- Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U.S. 497 (Supreme Court 1936) (supports caution against implied repeal)
- Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corp. v. WMATA, 393 U.S. 186 (Supreme Court 1968) (repeals by implication not favored)
- Agri Processor Co. v. NLRB, 514 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (illustrates interpretive limits on implied repeal and jurisdiction)