Board of Trade v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
66 F. Supp. 2d 891, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15075 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Administrative Procedure Act's 'arbitrary and capricious' standard, a court will defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations and the statutes it administers, upholding the agency's decision so long as it was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and the agency provided a reasoned explanation for its conclusion.
Facts:
- In January 1998, the Cantor Financial Futures Exchange (Cantor Exchange) applied to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) for designation as a contract market for U.S. Treasury futures contracts.
- The Cantor Exchange's application proposed a novel electronic trading system featuring 'exclusive time trading' and 'terminal operators' who would enter orders for traders.
- The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, the Kansas City Board of Trade, and the Minneapolis Grain Exchange (plaintiffs), all existing contract markets, submitted public comments opposing the Cantor Exchange's application.
- The plaintiffs argued that the proposed electronic system was not 'open and competitive' as required by regulation, that the terminal operators were effectively 'floor brokers' under the Commodity Exchange Act, and that approval would be contrary to the public interest due to the disciplinary history of an affiliated company and potential for market fragmentation.
- The Cantor Exchange submitted final revisions to its application in August 1998.
- On September 4, 1998, the Commission approved the Cantor Exchange’s contract market designation application.
Procedural Posture:
- The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago and other exchanges (plaintiffs) filed an action in the U.S. District Court against the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission).
- The plaintiffs sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of the Commission's final order approving the Cantor Exchange's application for designation as a contract market.
- The Commission moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The Commission filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's approval of a new contract market's application constitute an arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act, where existing exchanges allege the new market's electronic system violates regulatory standards and is not in the public interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Bucklo, District Judge
No. The Commission’s approval of the Cantor Exchange's application was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Under the narrow scope of judicial review, an agency's decision will be upheld if it considered the relevant factors and did not commit a clear error of judgment. The court first established that it had jurisdiction, finding that the Commodity Exchange Act does not preclude judicial review of designation approvals, thus the strong presumption of reviewability under the Administrative Procedure Act applies. On the merits, the court held that the Commission’s interpretation of its own regulation—finding that the Cantor Exchange's system satisfied the 'open and competitive' trading requirement—was not plainly erroneous and was entitled to controlling weight. Similarly, the Commission provided a reasoned analysis for concluding that terminal operators were not 'floor brokers' under the statute, an interpretation entitled to Chevron deference. The court also found that the administrative record showed the Commission adequately considered and addressed public interest concerns regarding the controlling group's fitness and potential market fragmentation. Finally, the decision not to resolicit public comment on the final application was a matter of agency discretion and was not arbitrary.
Analysis:
This opinion reinforces the significant deference courts afford to administrative agencies when reviewing their actions under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard. It illustrates that as long as an agency provides a reasoned explanation for its decision that is supported by the administrative record and considers the relevant statutory factors, its decision is likely to withstand a legal challenge. The case also affirms the strong presumption of judicial review for final agency actions, clarifying that a statute's silence on the review of approvals, while explicitly granting review for denials, is insufficient to overcome this presumption. This solidifies the principle that preclusion of judicial review requires 'clear and convincing evidence' of Congressional intent.
