NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in
    the preliminary print of the United States Reports.  Readers are
    requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the
    United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other
    formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the
    preliminary print goes to press.

                       SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

                                    --------
                                   No. 95-1181
                                    --------
      WILLIAM C. DUNN AND DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC., PETITIONERS v. COMMODITY
                                                              ___
                        FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION ET AL.


       ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
                                 SECOND CIRCUIT

                               [February 25, 1997]

  JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

  The question presented is whether Congress has authorized the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) to regulate "off-exchange"
trading in options to buy or sell foreign currency.
                                        I
  The CFTC brought this action in 1994, alleging that, beginning in 1992,
petitioners solicited investments in and operated a fraudulent scheme in
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), 7 U. S. C. S1 et seq., and CFTC
                                                             ________
regulations. (Ftnote. 1)  App. 10.  See 7 U. S. C. S6c(b); 17 CFR S32.9
             (Ftnote. 1)
(1996). (Ftnote. 2)  The CFTC's complaint, affida-
        (Ftnote. 2)









                    
____________________

   1)  The complaint names as defendants William C. Dunn, Delta Consultants,
   1)  
Inc., Delta Options, Ltd., and Nopkine Co., Ltd.  App. 6-7.  Only Dunn and Delta
Consultants are petitioners here.
   2)  The statute provides: "No person shall offer to enter into, enter into
   2)  
or confirm the execution of, any transaction involving any commodity regulated
under this chapter which is of the character of, or is commonly known to the
trade as, an `option' . . . contrary to any rule, regulation, or order of the
Commission prohibiting any such transaction or allowing any such transaction
under such terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe."  7 U. S. C.
S6c(b).  The regulations at issue here further make it unlawful "for any 
person directly or indirectly . . . [t]o cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or
defraud any other person; . . . [t]o make or cause to be made to any other
person any false report or statement thereof or cause to be entered for any
person any false record thereof; . . . [or] [t]o deceive or attempt to deceive
any other person by any means whatsoever . . . in or in connection with an offer
to enter into, the entry into, or the confirmation of the execution of, any
commodity option transaction."  17 CFR S32.9 (1996).

                                95-1181 - OPINION

2                   DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N
                        ____

vits, and declarations submitted to the District Court indicate that customers
were told their funds would be invested using complex strategies involving
options to purchase or sell various foreign currencies.  App. 8.  Petitioners
apparently did in fact engage in many such transactions.  Ibid.; 58 F. 3d 50, 51
                                                          _____
(CA2 1995).  To do so, they contracted directly with international banks and
others without making use of any regulated exchange or board of trade.  In the
parlance of the business, petitioners traded in the "off-exchange" or "over-the-
counter" (OTC) market. (Ftnote. 3)  Ibid.  No options were ever sold directly to
                       (Ftnote. 3)  _____
petitioners' customers.  However, their positions were tracked through internal
accounts, and investors were provided weekly reports showing the putative status
of their holdings.  Petitioners and their customers suffered heavy losses.  Id.,
                                                                            ____
at 51-52.  Subsequently, the CFTC commenced these proceedings.
  Rejecting petitioners' defense that off-exchange transactions in foreign
currency options are exempt from the CEA, the District Court appointed a
temporary receiver






























                    
____________________

   3)  We are informed by amici that participants in the "highly evolved,
   3)                     _____
sophisticated" OTC foreign currency markets include "commercial and investment
banks . . . foreign exchange dealers and brokerage companies, corporations,
money managers (including pension, mutual fund and commodity pool managers),
commodity trading advisors, insurance companies, governments and central banks." 
Brief for Foreign Exchange Committee et al. as Amici Curiae 8.  These markets
                                               ____________
serve a variety of functions, including providing ready access to foreign
currency for international transactions, and allowing businesses to hedge
against the risk of exchange rate movements.  Id., at 8-9.
                                              ____

                                95-1181 - OPINION

                    DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N                   3
                        ____

to take control of their property for the benefit of their customers.  App. to
Pet. for Cert. 5b-6b.  Relying on circuit precedent, (Ftnote. 4) and
                                                     (Ftnote. 4)
acknowledging a conflict with another Circuit, (Ftnote. 5) the Court of Appeals
                                               (Ftnote. 5)
affirmed.  58 F. 3d, at 54.  We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.  517
U. S. ___ (1996).  For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for
further proceedings.
                                       II
  The outcome of this case is dictated by the so-called "Treasury Amendment" to
the CEA.  88 Stat. 1395, 7 U. S. C. S2(ii).  We have previously reviewed the
history of the CEA and generally described how it authorizes the CFTC to
regulate the "volatile and esoteric" market in futures contracts in fungible
commodities.  See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456
                  ___________________________________________    _______
U. S. 353, 356, 357-367 (1982).  As a part of the 1974 amendments that created
the CFTC and dramatically expanded the coverage of the statute to include
nonagricultural commodities "in which contracts for future delivery are
presently or in the future dealt in," see 88 Stat. 1395, 7 U. S. C. S2 (1970
ed., Supp. IV), Congress enacted the following exemption, which has come to be
known as the "Treasury Amendment":


   "Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to govern or in any way be
   applicable to transactions in foreign currency, security warrants, security
                 __________________________________
   rights, resales of installment loan contracts, repurchase options, government
   securities, or mortgages and mortgage purchase commitments, unless such
   transactions involve the sale thereof for future delivery conducted on a
   board of trade."  7 U. S. C.
























                    
____________________

   4)  58 F. 3d 50, 53 (CA2 1995) (citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v.
   4)                                     ________________________________
American Bd. of Trade, 803 F. 2d 1242 (CA2 1986)).
_______________________
   5)  58 F. 3d, at 54 (citing Salomon Forex, Inc. v. Tauber, 8 F. 3d 966 (CA4
   5)                          ___________________    _______
1993), cert. denied, 511 U. S. 1031 (1994)).

                                95-1181 - OPINION

4                   DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N
                        ____

   S2(ii) (emphasis added).

  The narrow issue that we must decide is whether the italicized phrase
("transactions in foreign currency") includes transactions in options to buy or
sell foreign currency.  An option, as the term is understood in the trade, is a
transaction in which the buyer purchases from the seller for consideration the
right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an agreed amount of a commodity at
a set rate at any time prior to the option's expiration. (Ftnote. 6)  We think
                                                         (Ftnote. 6)
it plain that foreign currency options are "transactions in foreign currency"
within the meaning of the statute.  We are not persuaded by any of the arguments
advanced by the CFTC in support of a narrower reading that would exempt futures
contracts (agreements to buy or sell a specified quantity of a commodity at a
particular price for delivery at a set future date) (Ftnote. 7) without
                                                    (Ftnote. 7)
exempting options.
                                       III
  "[A]bsent any `indication that doing so would frustrate Congress's clear
intention or yield patent absurdity, our obligation is to apply the statute as
Congress wrote it.' " Hubbard v. United States, 514 U. S. ___ (1995) (slip. op.,
                      _______    ______________
at 8) (quoting BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation, 511
               ___    _____________________________
























                    
____________________

   6)  See G. Munn & F. Garcia, Encyclopedia of Banking and Finance 736 (8th
   6)  
ed. 1983) (hereinafter Munn & Garcia); C. Luca, Trading in the Global Currency
Markets 243 (1995) (hereinafter Luca).  Participants in these markets refer to
an option that provides the right to sell currency as a "put," and one that
provides the right to buy as a "call."  Munn & Garcia 737; Luca 270, 272. 
Options can themselves be traded, at values that vary depending upon the
exchange rate of the underlying currencies prior to the option's expiration. 
Brief for Foreign Exchange Committee et al. as Amici Curiae 5, n. 5.
                                               ____________
   7)  See Munn & Garcia 414; City of New York Bar Association Committee on
   7)  
Futures Regulation, The Evolving Regulatory Framework for Foreign Currency
Trading 9 (1986).

                                95-1181 - OPINION

                    DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N                   5
                        ____

U. S. 531, 570 (1994) (SOUTER, J., dissenting)).  The CFTC argues, and the Court
of Appeals held, that an option is not itself a transaction "in" foreign
currency, but rather is just a contract right to engage in such a transaction at
a future date.  Brief for Respondent 30-31; 58 F. 3d, at 53.  Hence, the
Commission submits that the term "transactions in foreign currency" includes
only the "actual exercise of an option (i.e., the actual purchase or sale of
                                        _____
foreign currency)" but not the purchase or sale of an option itself.  Brief for
Respondent 31.  That reading of the text seems quite unnatural to us, and we
decline to adopt it.
  The more normal reading of the key phrase encompasses all transactions in
which foreign currency is the fungible good whose fluctuating market price
provides the motive for trading.  The CFTC's interpretation violates the
ordinary meaning of the key word "in," which is usually thought to be
"synonymous with [the] expressions `in regard to,' `respecting,' [and] `with
respect to.'"  Black's Law Dictionary 758 (6th ed. 1990); see Babbitt v. Sweet
                                                              _______    _____
Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore., 515 U. S. ___ (1995) (slip op., at
_________________________________________
8-9).  There can be no question that the purchase or sale of a foreign currency
option is a transaction "respecting" foreign currency.  We think it equally
plain as a matter of ordinary meaning that such an option is a transaction "in"
foreign currency for purposes of the Treasury Amendment.
  Indeed, adopting the Commission's reading would deprive the exemption of the
principal effect Congress intended.  The CFTC acknowledges that futures con-
tracts fall squarely within the Treasury Amendment's exemption, Brief for
Respondent 30, and there is no question that the exemption of off-exchange
foreign currency futures from CFTC regulation was one of

                                95-1181 - OPINION

6                   DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N
                        ____

Congress' primary goals. (Ftnote. 8)  Yet on the CFTC's reasoning the
                         (Ftnote. 8)
exemption's application to futures contracts could not be sustained.
  A futures contract is no more a transaction "in" foreign currency as the
Commission understands the term than an option.  The Commission argues that
because a futures contract creates a legal obligation to purchase or sell
currency on a particular date, it is somehow more clearly a transaction "in" the
underlying currencies than an option, which generates only the right to engage
in a transaction.  Brief for Respondent 30-32.  This reasoning is wholly
unpersuasive.  No currency changes hands at the time a futures contract is made. 
And, the existence of a futures contract does not guarantee that currency will
actually be exchanged.  Indeed, the Commission concedes that, in most cases,
futures contracts are "extinguished before delivery by entry into an offsetting
futures contract."  Id., at 30 (citing 1 T. Snider, Regulation of the
                    ____
Commodities Futures and Options Markets S2.05 (2d ed. 1995) (here-

























                    
____________________

   8)  The amendment was enacted on the suggestion of the Treasury Department
   8)  
at the time of a dramatic expansion in the scope of federal commodities
regulation.  The Department expressed concerns in a letter to the relevant
congressional committee that this development might lead, inter alia, to the
                                                          ___________
unintended regulation of the off-exchange market in foreign currency futures. 
See S. Rep. No. 93-1131, pp. 50-51 (1974) ("The Department feels strongly that
foreign currency futures trading, other than on organized exchanges, should not
be regulated by the new agency") (letter of Donald Ritger, Acting General
Counsel).  The Treasury Amendment, which tracks almost verbatim the language
proposed by the Department, cf. id., at 51, was included in the legislation to
                                ____
respond to these concerns.  Id., at 23.  The CFTC is therefore plainly correct
                            ____
to reject the suggestion of its amici that the Treasury Amendment's exemption be
                                _____
construed not to include futures contracts within its coverage.  See Brief for
Chicago Mercantile Exchange as Amicus Curiae 17-18; Brief for Board of Trade of
                               _____________
City of Chicago as Amicus Curiae 10.
                   _____________

                                95-1181 - OPINION

                    DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N                   7
                        ____

inafter Snider)); see also Munn & Garcia 414.  Adopting the CFTC's reading would
therefore place both futures and options outside the exemption, in clear
contravention of Congress' intent.
  Furthermore, this interpretation would leave the Treasury Amendment's
exemption for "transactions in foreign currency" without any significant effect
at all, because it would limit the scope of the exemption to "forward contracts"
(agreements that anticipate the actual delivery of a commodity on a specified
future date) and "spot transactions" (agreements for purchase and sale of
commodities that anticipate near-term delivery). (Ftnote. 9)  Both are
                                                 (Ftnote. 9)
transactions "in" a commodity as the CFTC would have us understand the term. 
But neither type of transaction for any commodity was subject to intensive regu-
                                    ___
lation under the CEA at the time of the Treasury Amendment's passage.  See 7
U. S. C. S2 (1970 ed., Supp. IV) ("term `future delivery,' as used in this
chapter, shall not include any sale of any cash commodity for deferred shipment
or delivery"); Snider S9.01; J. Markham, The History of Commodity Futures
Trading and Its Regulation 201-203 (1987).  Our reading of the exemption is
therefore also consonant with the doctrine that legislative enactments should
not be construed to render their provisions mere surplusage.  See Babbitt, 515
                                                                  ________
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9) (noting "reluctance to treat statutory terms as
surplusage"); Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana,
              _________________________________________    ____________________
472 U. S. 237, 249 (1985).
  Finally, including options in the exemption is consistent with Congress'
purpose in enacting the Treasury Amendment.  Although at the time the Treasury
Amendment was drafted a thriving off-exchange market in





























                    
____________________

   9)  See Snider S9.01 (defining "spot transactions" and "forward contracts").
   9)  

                                95-1181 - OPINION

8                   DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N
                        ____

foreign currency futures was in place, the closely related options market at
issue here had not yet developed.  See City of New York Bar Association
Committee on Futures Regulation, The Evolving Regulatory Framework for Foreign
Currency Trading 18, 23 (1986).  The CFTC therefore suggests that Congress could
not have intended to exempt foreign currency options from the CEA's coverage. 
Brief for Respondent 41-42.  The legislative history strongly suggests to the
contrary that Congress' broad purpose in enacting the Treasury Amendment was to
provide a general exemption from CFTC regulation for sophisticated off-exchange
foreign currency trading, which had previously developed entirely free from
supervision under the commodities laws.
  In explaining the Treasury Amendment, the Senate Committee Report notes in
broad terms that the amendment "provides that inter-bank trading of foreign
currencies and specified financial instruments is not subject to Commission
regulation."  S. Rep. No. 93-1131, p. 6 (1974). (Ftnote. 10)  Elsewhere, the
                                                (Ftnote. 10)
Report again explains in general terms - without making reference to any
distinction between options and futures - that the legislation:

   "included an amendment to clarify that the provisions of the bill are not
   applicable to trading in foreign currencies and enumerated financial instru-
   ments unless such trading is conducted on a formally organized futures
   exchange.  A great deal of the trading in foreign currency in the United
   States is carried out through an informal network of banks and tellers.  The
   Committee believes that this market is more properly supervised by the bank



























                    
____________________

   10)  Similarly, the Conference Committee Report points out that the Treasury
   10)  
Amendment "provides that interbank trading of foreign currencies and specified
financial instruments is not subject to Commission regulation."  H. R. Rep. No.
93-1383, p. 35 (1974).

                                95-1181 - OPINION

                    DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N                   9
                        ____

   regulatory agencies and that, therefore, regulation under this legislation is
   unnecessary."  Id., at 23.
                ______

Similarly, the Treasury Department submitted to the Chairman of the relevant
Senate Committee a letter that was the original source of the Treasury Amend-
ment.  While focusing on the need to exempt the foreign currency futures market
from CFTC regulation, the letter points out that the "participants in this
market are sophisticated and informed institutions," and "the [CFTC] would
clearly not have the expertise to regulate a complex banking function and would
confuse an already highly regulated business sector."  Id., at 50 (letter of
                                                       ____
Donald Ritger, Acting General Counsel).  The Department further explained that
"new regulatory limitations and restrictions could have an adverse impact on the
usefulness and efficiency of foreign exchange markets for traders and
investors."  Ibid.
             _____
  Although the OTC market for foreign currency options had not yet developed in
1974, the reasons underlying the Treasury Department's express desire at that
time to exempt off-exchange commodity futures trading from CFTC regulation apply
with equal force to options today.  Foreign currency options and futures are now
traded in the same off-exchange markets, by the same entities, for quite similar
purposes.  See Brief for Foreign Exchange Committee et al. as Amici Curiae 19. 
                                                              ____________
Contrary to the Commission's suggestion, we therefore think the purposes
underlying the Treasury Amendment are most properly fulfilled by giving effect
to the plain meaning of the language as Congress enacted it.
  The CFTC rejoins that the Treasury Amendment should be construed in the light
of Congress' history of regulating options more strictly than futures.  See
Snider SS7.03-7.04; Brief for Respondent 38-39.  The Commission submits that
this distinction was motivated by the view that options lend themselves more
readily to fraudulent schemes than futures contracts.  Hence,

                                95-1181 - OPINION

10                  DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N
                        ____

the CFTC argues that Congress would have acted reasonably and consistently with
prior practice had it regulated commodities differently from options.  While
that may be true, we give only slight credence to these general historical
considerations, which are unsupported by statutory language, or any evidence
evocative of the particular concerns focused on by the legislators who enacted
the Treasury Amendment.  We think the history of the Treasury Amendment suggests
- contrary to the CFTC's view - that it was intended to take all transactions
relating to foreign currency not conducted on a board of trade outside of the
CEA's ambit.  This interpretation is consistent with the fact that, prior to the
enactment of the CEA in 1974, foreign currency trading had been entirely unregu-
lated under the commodities laws.
  Our interpretation is also consonant with the history of evolving
congressional regulation in this area.  That history has been one of
successively broadening the coverage of regulation by the addition of more and
more commodities to the applicable legislation. (Ftnote. 11)  It seems
                                                (Ftnote. 11)
























                    
____________________

   11)  The Grain Futures Act, enacted by Congress in 1922 to authorize the
   11)  
Secretary of Agriculture to supervise trading in grain futures on "contract
markets," defined the regulated commodities to include "wheat, corn, oats,
barley, rye, flax, and sorghum."  42 Stat. 998.  In 1936 Congress expanded the
coverage of the legislation to add further agricultural commodities, including
cotton, rice, butter, eggs, and Irish potatoes.  Ch. 545, 49 Stat. 1491.  (The
contrast between the title of the 1936 Act - "Commodity Exchange Act" - and the
title of its predecessor - "Grain Futures Act" - suggests that an easy way to
describe the coverage of the legislation is to identify the commodities that it
regulates).  In 1968 the coverage of the legislation was again expanded, this
time to include livestock and livestock products.  82 Stat. 26.  The 1974
amendment expanded the coverage of the statute to include nonagricultural
commodities and, appropriately, replaced regulation by the Secretary of Agricul-
ture with regulation by a new commission whose title included the word "Commodi-
ty."

                                95-1181 - OPINION

                    DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N                  11
                        ____

quite natural in this context to read the Treasury Amendment's exemption of
transactions in foreign currencies as a complete exclusion of that commodity
from the regulatory scheme, except, of course, to the extent that the proviso
for transactions "conducted on a board of trade" qualifies that exclusion.  See
7 U. S. C. S2(ii).
                                       IV
  To buttress its reading of the statute, the CFTC argues that elsewhere in the
CEA Congress referred to transactions "involving" a particular commodity to de-
scribe options or used other "more encompassing terminology," rather than what
we are told is the narrower term transactions "in" the commodity, which was re-
served for futures, spot transactions, and forward contracts.  Brief for
Respondent 30-33.  Not only do we think it unlikely that Congress would adopt
such a subtle method of drawing important distinctions, there is little to
suggest that it did so.
  Congress' use of these terms has been far from consistent.  Most strikingly,
the use of the word "involving" in the Treasury Amendment itself completely
eviscerates the force of the Commission's argument.  After setting forth
exemptions for, inter alia, "transactions in foreign currency," the Amendment
                ___________
contains a proviso sweeping back into the statute's coverage "such transactions
involv[ing] the sale thereof for future delivery conducted on a board of trade." 
___________
7 U. S. C. S2(ii) (emphasis added).  As we have already noted, the CFTC agrees
that futures contracts are a subset of "transactions in foreign currency."  The
Commission further submits that the proviso uses the word "involve" to make the
exemption inapplicable to those futures contracts that are conducted on a board
of trade.  This contradicts the "in" versus "involving" distinction.  We would
expect on the Commission's reasoning that this provision would refer to
"transactions in futures."  The use of the term "involv-
              __

                                95-1181 - OPINION

12                  DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N
                        ____

ing" instead, within the very amendment that respondent claims embraces this
distinction, weighs heavily against the view that any such distinction was
intended by Congress. (Ftnote. 12)
                      (Ftnote. 12)
  The CFTC argues further that the proviso properly understood aids its cause. 
The proviso sweeps back into the CFTC's jurisdiction otherwise exempt
"transactions in foreign currency" that "involve the sale thereof for future
delivery" and are "conducted on a board of trade."  Since the proviso refers to
futures without mentioning options, the Commission submits that the exemption
itself should be read only to cover futures because Con-





















                    
____________________

   12)  Similarly, the statute refers at one point to "[t]ransactions in
   12)                                                                __
commodities involving the sale thereof for future delivery . . . and known as
            _________
`futures.'"  7 U. S. C. S5 (emphasis added).  Had Congress meant to maintain
the Commission's distinction, we would not have expected the Legislature to use
the words "in" and "involving" loosely in the same sentence to refer to futures,
which the CFTC informs us are transactions "in" (but not "involving") foreign
currency.  Similarly, the statute refers elsewhere to "transaction[s] in an
                                                                      _____
option on foreign currency."  S6c(f) (emphasis added).  If Congress had spoken
______
in the manner the CFTC suggests, that provision would instead use the phrase
"transactions involving an option."
              _________
 The statute's general jurisdictional provision also fails to maintain the
distinction the Commission presses.  The CEA provides that the CFTC "shall have
exclusive jurisdiction . . . with respect to accounts, agreements (including any
transaction which is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as,
an `option' . . .), and transactions involving contracts of sale of a commodity
                                     _________
for future delivery."  S2(i) (emphasis added).  The Commission submits that this
language gives the CFTC regulatory authority over options on futures contracts,
see Snider S10.11, and argues that the use of the word "involving" is therefore
in keeping with its interpretation of the statutory scheme.  See Brief for
Respondent 32.  But S2(i) provides the CFTC with exclusive jurisdiction over far
more.  Among other things, it explicitly grants jurisdiction over any "transac-
tio[n] involving contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery," plainly
       _________
meaning at a minimum ordinary futures contracts, which the Commission otherwise
insists are transactions "in" commodities.

                                95-1181 - OPINION

                    DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N                  13
                        ____

gress cannot reasonably have intended to regulate exchange trading in foreign
currency futures without also regulating exchange trading in such options.  We
agree that Congress intended no such anomaly.  But we are satisfied that the
anomaly is best avoided by reading the proviso broadly rather than reading the
exemption narrowly.
  The proviso's language fairly accommodates inclusion of both options and
futures.  To fall within the proviso, a transaction must "involve the sale [of
                                                          _______
foreign currency] for future delivery."  S2(ii) (emphasis added).  Because
options convey the right to buy or sell foreign currency at some future time
prior to their expiration, they are transactions "involv[ing]" or related to the
sale of foreign currency for future delivery.  Thus, both futures and options
are covered by both the exemption and the proviso.  While that may not be the
only possible reading of the literal text, and we do not intend to suggest that
a similar construction would be required with respect to other provisions of the
CEA, our interpretation is faithful to the "contemporary legal context" in which
the Treasury Amendment was drafted.  Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S.
                                     ______    ______________________
677, 699 (1979); see also Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U. S. 107, 115 (1989)
                          _____________    _______
(noting that "`in expounding a statute, we [are] not . . . guided by a single
sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law,
and to its object and policy'") (quoting Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481
                                         ___________________    ________
U. S. 41, 51 (1987)).
  Finally, the CFTC calls our attention to statements in the legislative history
of a 1982 amendment to the CEA, (Ftnote. 13) indicating that the drafters of
                                (Ftnote. 13)
that amendment believed that the CFTC had the authority to regulate




























                    
____________________

   13)  Futures Trading Act of 1982, Tit. I, S102, 96 Stat. 2296, 7 U. S. C.
   13)  
S6c(f).

                                95-1181 - OPINION

14                  DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N
                        ____

foreign currency options "when they are traded other than on a national
securities exchange."  See S. Rep. No. 97-384, p. 22 (1982).  Those statements,
at best, might be described as "legislative dicta" because the 1982 amendment
itself merely resolved a conflict between the Securities Exchange Commission and
the CFTC concerning their respective authority to regulate transactions on an
exchange.  See Snider S10.24.  The amendment made no change in the law
applicable to off-exchange trading.  Although the "dicta" is consistent with the
position that the CFTC advocates, it sheds no light on the intent of the authors
of the Treasury Amendment that had been adopted eight years earlier.  See, e.g.,
                                                                           _____
Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U. S. 825, 839- 840
______    _________________________________________
(1988). (Ftnote. 14)
        (Ftnote. 14)


















                    
____________________

   14)  Though the CFTC's brief disclaims any need for it, Brief for Respondent
   14)  
48, at oral argument the Commission requested for the first time that we give
deference to its interpretation of the Treasury Amendment as the agency "charged
with administering" it.  Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S.
                         ______    _______________________________
___, ___ (1996) (slip op., at 3); Tr. of Oral Arg. 54; see Chevron U. S. A. Inc.
                                                           _____________________
v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984).  If Chevron
   ________________________________________                           _______
principles were applicable, we are unsure that the CFTC's position would be the
one owed deference.  As the Commission concedes, Brief for Respondent 25, the
Treasury Department has taken a quite different view of the statute - one
consonant with the interpretation set forth here - to which petitioners argue
deference is owed if Chevron is invoked.  A reasonable argument could be made
                     _______
that Congress intended to charge Treasury, rather than the Commission, with
administering the dimensions of the aptly named Treasury Amendment, which was
specifically enacted at the behest of Treasury to confine the CFTC's activities. 
Cf. Smiley, 517 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (explaining that Chevron
    _______                                                     _______
deference arises out of background presumptions of congressional intent); Martin
                                                                          ______
v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 499 U. S. 144, 157-158 (1991)
   _____________________________________________
(allocating power "authoritatively to interpret . . . regulations" after
assessing "available indicia of legislative intent").  We need not "resolve the
difficult issues regarding deference which would be lurking in other
circumstances."  Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U. S. 469, 477
                 ________________    _____________________
(1992).  Because "the statute, as a whole, clearly expresses Congress'
intention" to include foreign currency options within the Treasury Amendment's
exemption, administrative deference is improper.  Dole v. Steelworkers, 494
                                                  ____    _____________
U. S. 26, 42 (1990).

                                95-1181 - OPINION

                    DUNN v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N                  15
                        ____

                                        V
  Underlying the statutory construction question before us, we recognize that
there is an important public policy dispute - with substantial arguments
favoring each side.  Petitioners, their amici, and the Treasury Department,
                                        ______
argue that if off-exchange foreign currency options are not treated as exempt
from CEA regulation, the increased costs associated with unnecessary regulation
of the highly sophisticated OTC foreign currency markets might well drive this
business out of the United States. (Ftnote. 15)  The Commission responds that to
                                   (Ftnote. 15)
the extent limited exemptions from regulation are necessary, it will provide
them, but argues that options are particularly susceptible to fraud and abuse if
not carefully policed.  Brief for Respondent 26, 49.  As the Commission properly
acknowledges, however, these are arguments best addressed to the Congress, not
the courts.  See United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S. 544, 555 (1979). 
                 _____________    ___________
Lacking the expertise or authority to assess these important competing claims,
we note only that "a literal construction of the statute" does not "yiel[d]
results so manifestly unreasonable that they could not fairly be attributed to
congressional design."  Ibid.
                        _____
  The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
                                                               It is so ordered.
                                                               _________________































                    
____________________

   15)  Brief for Petitioners 23-25; Brief for Credit Lyonnais et al. as Amici
   15)                                                                   _____
Curiae 3; Brief for Foreign Exchange Committee et al. as Amici Curiae 6; Brief
______                                                   ____________
for Respondent 25.