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?