A final rule issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that curbed the number of contracts a trader can have already is raising a lot of controversy in the financial industry.

The purpose of the rule, mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, is to prevent excessive speculation in oil, gold, and other commodity markets. But the International Swaps and Derivatives Association and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association filed a request Feb. 7 with U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins for the District of Columbia, urging him to temporarily block the rule while he considers their legal challenge.

In a 50-page filing, SIFMA and ISDA told the court that a stay will “avoid imposing costs that the agency concedes will occur and that a majority of the (CFTC) commissioners determined would harm consumers and the markets as a whole.”

Additionally, the groups told the court if the CFTC's rules go into effect they will “experience added costs and irreparable harm each day this rule remains in effect, and there will be no identifiable harm from a stay.” SIFMA and ISDA represent some the largest financial institutions—JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley—and hundreds of other banks, securities firms, and asset managers.

On Feb. 8, Wilkins ordered the CFTC to respond to the request by Feb. 17 and scheduled a hearing for Feb. 27.

The groups made a nearly identical request in December with the U.S. Appeals Court in Washington to delay the final rule, but the court dismissed the case in January on the ground that the challenge to the legislation must first be considered by the district court.

The groups argued that the CFTC rule may “adversely impact commodities markets and market participants, including end-users, by reducing liquidity and increasing price volatility.”

They also contend that the CFTC's decision-making process in enacting the rule was procedurally flawed. “Among other deficiencies, the CFTC adopted the rule without making findings as to the necessity and appropriateness of the position limits, as required by statute. Furthermore, the CFTC failed to conduct any meaningful cost-benefit analysis and lacked a reasoned basis for its rule.”