Opinion

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Baragosh

  • 278 F.3d 319
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jan 22, 2002
Status
Published
Author
Williams
On the bench
Wilkinson, Williams, Motz
Cited by
1 cases

The opinion

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:

I concur in Parts I, III and IV of Judge Motz’s opinion, and concur in the result with respect to Part II. I write separately because I believe that the language of the CEA itself, read in the most natural manner, authorizes the CFTC to regulate the transactions at issue in this case. Because the legislative history does not clearly suggest that transactions such as the ones at issue in this case were meant to be exempted from CFTC jurisdiction, there is no need to address a potential conflict between text and legislative history. I therefore concur in the result reached by Part II of the majority opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.