Whether the Seventh Circuit wrongly expanded the doctrine of implied conflict preemption

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Seventh Circuit wrongly expanded the doctrine of implied conflict preemption by holding that an obstacle could form the basis of preemption even if the obstacle is uncertain to occur and the obstacle will not prevent a regulator from fulfilling its duties. 2. Whether the Commodities Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (the “CEA”), impliedly preempts state law tort claims of general application brought by an unregulated person against the National Futures Association (the “NFA”) when such unregulated person has no statutory remedy under the CEA and the state law claim would not create a concrete definable and definite obstacle or otherwise conflict with the administration of the NFA’s regulatory activities. 3. Whether the regulatory actions of the NFA, a federally authorized Self-Regulatory Organization (an “SRO”), can preempt state law to the extent the manner of the SRO’s regulatory action is not expressly prescribed in detail by the grant of regulatory authority from the federal agency.