Question

a rule regulating hotels found in a duly enacted and current law of the state of california directly conflicts with a validly issued rule from a federal administrative agency. a legal dispute developed between a hotel owner and a government body, and the hotel owner sought judicial review of the state law, arguing that it was preempted by the federal agency's rule. all parties had standing, and there were issues over the court's jurisdiction. after the trials and appeals were complete, the courts declined to invalidate the state law. the california law was enforceable in spite of the seemingly legitimate and conflicting federal agency. which of the following statements summarizes a legitimate reason why the courts did not preempt the conflicting state law?

Answer 1

One legitimate reason why the courts did not preempt the conflicting state law could be that the federal agency's rule did not have the authority to completely override or preempt state law in this particular context. The courts may have considered factors such as the scope of the federal agency's jurisdiction, the specific language and intent of the state law, and any potential conflicts with constitutional principles or other federal laws. The courts may have concluded that, despite the conflict, the state law still served a legitimate purpose and was within the state's authority to regulate hotels.