The Hyperliquid Policy Center has asked a federal court to dismiss CME Group’s challenge to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s approval of perpetual futures, joining the regulator in a case that could shape how new derivatives products reach U.S. markets.
The policy group filed an amicus brief Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that CME lacks standing to block the CFTC’s action merely because new perpetual futures products may compete with its existing business. Elizabeth Prelogar, who served as U.S. solicitor general from 2021 through 2025, represents the Policy Center in the filing.
CME sued the CFTC in June after the agency cleared the way for perpetual futures to trade in the United States. The exchange operator argues that the contracts should be regulated as swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act, which would subject them to a different regulatory framework than conventional futures.
The dispute places a familiar crypto-market product at the center of a broader legal question: whether established exchanges can use competitive harm claims to challenge the approval of newer products under existing commodities law.
CME challenges the CFTC’s product approval
Perpetual futures, commonly called perps, allow traders to take long or short positions on an asset’s price without a contract expiration date. Unlike standard futures, which settle at a predetermined date, perpetual contracts use periodic funding payments to help keep their price close to the underlying market.
The products have become a major part of offshore cryptocurrency derivatives trading. Platforms including Hyperliquid have built substantial businesses around perpetual contracts, while U.S. regulated markets have traditionally focused on dated futures and options.
The CFTC last month approved the first U.S.-listed perpetual futures products for Kalshi and Coinbase, according to the Policy Center’s filing. The approvals opened a route for the contracts to trade domestically under CFTC oversight, rather than leaving U.S. traders to seek similar exposure through offshore venues.
CME’s lawsuit contends that the CFTC’s approach conflicts with Dodd-Frank’s rules for swaps. Terry Duffy, CME Group’s chief executive officer, has previously argued that perpetual futures fit the legal definition of swaps and should therefore be subject to the requirements Congress created after the 2008 financial crisis.
That classification dispute has practical consequences. Futures and swaps operate under overlapping but distinct provisions of U.S. law, with different rules covering listing, clearing, reporting and market structure. A court ruling that disrupts the CFTC’s approval process could make it harder for exchanges to introduce products that blend familiar futures mechanics with structures developed in digital-asset markets.
Policy Center disputes CME’s claim of harm
The Hyperliquid Policy Center’s brief focuses heavily on CME’s ability to bring the case. It argues that the CFTC’s decision expanded the range of products available to the market rather than taking away an existing CME product or forcing CME to alter its own operations.
CME has said the approvals would expose it to direct competition and cause commercial injury. The Policy Center counters that competition alone does not necessarily establish the type of legal injury required for a company to challenge a federal agency’s action in court.
Prelogar’s filing characterizes CME’s objection as an effort by an incumbent exchange to prevent competing products from entering the market. That argument seeks to move the case away from a debate over the commercial appeal of perpetual futures and toward the narrower issue of whether CME can show a legally recognizable injury from the CFTC’s order.
The distinction could be consequential for financial-market regulation. Exchanges frequently compete over product design, clearing arrangements and access to different categories of traders. If a rival could routinely challenge an approval by alleging that a newly listed contract may draw business away, product approvals could face a longer and more contested path through the courts.
The Policy Center also argues that a ruling for CME could restrict Americans’ access to perpetual futures on regulated domestic venues. The brief does not ask the court to decide whether Hyperliquid itself can operate in the United States, and it does not seek relief connected to Hyperliquid’s own platform.
Hyperliquid’s U.S. status remains separate
President Donald Trump has said the CFTC is working to bring Hyperliquid onshore in a “fully compliant and legal fashion.” The administration’s comments have drawn attention because Hyperliquid is one of the best-known decentralized perpetual futures venues in the crypto market.
Yet the court case concerns the CFTC’s approval of perpetual futures contracts for other U.S. venues, particularly Kalshi and Coinbase. Kalshi has operated as a CFTC-regulated exchange since 2020, the Policy Center said in its brief.
That separation matters for the litigation. The case is not a referendum on whether decentralized trading protocols should be registered, how they should handle customer protections, or whether a particular crypto platform satisfies U.S. commodities rules. It instead examines the agency’s authority to permit a contract type that lacks a fixed maturity date.
A decision to dismiss CME’s lawsuit would leave the CFTC’s recent approvals in place and allow the newly listed products to continue operating under the terms set by the regulator. If CME clears the standing hurdle and succeeds on the merits, the court could force the CFTC to reconsider the legal basis for treating perpetual contracts as futures.
A test for regulated crypto derivatives
The case arrives as U.S. policymakers seek ways to bring activity that developed largely in overseas crypto markets into supervised domestic venues. Perpetual futures are a useful test of that effort because their structure is widely understood by crypto traders but has historically sat outside the core product lineup of major U.S. futures exchanges.
The CFTC’s approval of products linked to Kalshi and Coinbase suggests the agency sees a path for listing perps within its existing framework. CME’s suit challenges that interpretation and could determine whether the agency can continue applying it to future products.
For now, the immediate legal battle will center on procedural questions as much as on the contracts themselves. The Policy Center wants the court to end the case before it reaches CME’s Dodd-Frank arguments, saying the exchange’s claimed competitive injury does not justify judicial intervention in the CFTC’s decision.
Want deeper context on these products? Learn how perpetual futures work before the next policy shift hits.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
