## Facts

- Brian Hunter, a trader at the Amaranth hedge fund, traded natural gas futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)–regulated exchange.
- Between February and April 2006, Hunter sold large volumes of NYMEX natural gas futures during the settlement window on multiple days, comprising roughly 14.4% to 19.4% of market volume on those days.
- The alleged trading strategy lowered the NYMEX futures settlement price and increased the value of Hunter’s large short position.
- Because the NYMEX settlement price influenced prices in certain physical natural gas markets, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) asserted that the conduct affected FERC-jurisdictional markets.
- In July 2007, the CFTC filed a civil enforcement action against Hunter in federal district court under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).
- The following day, FERC initiated an administrative enforcement proceeding alleging market manipulation under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).
- FERC found a violation and imposed a $30 million civil penalty.
- Hunter petitioned for review, arguing FERC lacked jurisdiction because the CEA grants the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over futures trading.

## Issues

1. Whether FERC had statutory authority under the NGA, as amended by EPAct 2005, to penalize alleged manipulation of natural gas futures contracts traded on a CFTC-regulated exchange.
2. Whether EPAct 2005 implicitly repealed or displaced the CFTC’s “exclusive jurisdiction” over futures transactions under the CEA.

## Decision

- The court granted Hunter’s petition for review.
- The court held FERC lacked jurisdiction to impose a civil penalty for alleged manipulation of natural gas futures contracts traded on NYMEX.
- The court vacated FERC’s enforcement orders, including the $30 million penalty.
- The court concluded that manipulation of natural gas futures falls within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction and EPAct 2005 did not clearly and manifestly repeal that exclusivity.

## Legal Principles

- The CEA grants the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over transactions involving contracts for future delivery traded on regulated exchanges.
- Repeal by implication is strongly disfavored; displacement of an exclusivity provision requires clear and manifest congressional intent.
- An agency’s authority to police manipulation in markets within its domain does not extend to conduct squarely regulated by another agency under an express exclusivity clause, absent clear statutory direction.
- Statutes addressing related subject matter should be read to coexist where possible: FERC’s anti-manipulation authority reaches FERC-jurisdictional physical natural gas transactions, while the CFTC’s authority governs exchange-traded futures.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit set aside FERC’s penalty against Hunter because the conduct at issue was manipulation of exchange-traded natural gas futures, an area Congress placed within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction, and EPAct 2005 did not clearly transfer or share that authority with FERC.


Hunter v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n, 711 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2013)