Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Preemption Analysis

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Preemption AnalysisQuestion 1 of 20

The federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes a comprehensive and detailed scheme for the registration of aliens in the United States. Federal law requires aliens to register with the federal government and carry federal registration cards. A state, citing concerns about domestic security and employment verification, enacts a statute requiring every alien in the state to register annually with the state's department of public safety and pay a registration fee.

A group of legally present aliens challenges the state registration law. What is the most likely basis for a court to invalidate the state law? Select one.

The state law violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against aliens.

The state law is preempted because federal immigration law occupies the entire field of alien registration.

The state law is an unconstitutional tax on a federal activity.

The state law is preempted only if it is physically impossible for an alien to register with both the state and federal governments.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Preemption Analysis

Practice Preemption Analysis in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Preemption Analysis, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

A group of legally present aliens challenges the state registration law. What is the most likely basis for a court to invalidate the state law? Select one.

The state law violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against aliens.
The state law is preempted because federal immigration law occupies the entire field of alien registration. (correct answer)
The state law is an unconstitutional tax on a federal activity.
The state law is preempted only if it is physically impossible for an alien to register with both the state and federal governments.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The Supreme Court has long held that the federal government has exclusive authority over immigration and the regulation of aliens. The INA creates a pervasive regulatory scheme that fully occupies the field of alien registration, leaving no room for supplemental state action. A is a possible but weaker argument; federal law also distinguishes between citizens and aliens, and such classifications are subject to a specific standard of review. Preemption is the most direct and established reason for invalidating such a law. C is incorrect because registering with the state is not a federal activity. D is incorrect because it relies on impossibility preemption, whereas the correct analysis is field preemption, which does not require impossibility.

Question 2

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires pesticide manufacturers to submit their proposed labels to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. FIFRA expressly preempts any state law that imposes "any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this Act." However, FIFRA also includes a savings clause that allows states to regulate the "sale or use" of any federally registered pesticide. A state enacts a law that completely bans the retail sale of a specific, EPA-approved pesticide due to concerns about its effect on local wildlife.

A manufacturer of the pesticide challenges the state ban. Is the state law preempted by FIFRA? Select one.

Yes, because a complete ban on sale is effectively a requirement different from federal law, which allows the pesticide to be sold.
Yes, because the federal government has occupied the field of pesticide regulation, preventing states from enacting any laws on the subject.
No, because the state law regulates the sale of the pesticide, a right explicitly preserved for the states by the Act's savings clause. (correct answer)
No, because states retain their inherent police power to protect local health, safety, and wildlife, regardless of federal regulation.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This question tests the interaction between a preemption clause and a savings clause. While FIFRA expressly preempts state labeling requirements, its savings clause explicitly allows states to regulate the sale or use of pesticides. A complete ban is the ultimate regulation of sale. Therefore, the state law falls within the power reserved to it by the savings clause and is not preempted. A is incorrect because the ban is not a labeling requirement; it's a sales regulation. B is incorrect because FIFRA does not occupy the entire field; it expressly allows for state regulation of sale and use. D is too broad; while states have police powers, those powers can be and are often preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause. Here, the federal law itself permits the state action.

Question 3

The President, acting pursuant to a broad congressional delegation of authority over foreign affairs, issues an executive order lifting all economic sanctions against Country X to encourage diplomatic relations. A state legislature, with a large constituency that opposes Country X's government, passes a law prohibiting any company that does business with Country X from receiving state contracts. A corporation that does business with both the state and Country X challenges the state law.

What is the corporation's strongest constitutional argument against the state law? Select one.

The state law is preempted because it interferes with the federal government's exclusive authority to conduct foreign policy. (correct answer)
The state law violates the corporation's First Amendment rights of free association.
The state law constitutes a bill of attainder by punishing the corporation without a judicial trial.
The state law violates the dormant Commerce Clause by regulating international commerce.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The conduct of foreign affairs is a power vested exclusively in the federal government. State laws that intrude upon this area, such as by creating their own foreign policy through sanctions, are preempted. The state law here creates an obstacle to the President's stated objective of engaging with Country X. This is a form of obstacle preemption in an area of strong federal interest. B and C are incorrect because the law does not target specific associations or punish without trial in the constitutional sense. D is plausible, as the law does affect foreign commerce, but the preemption argument based on the exclusive federal power over foreign affairs is more direct and powerful.

Question 4

Congress enacted the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), which establishes detailed federal standards for the inspection, labeling, and packaging of meat products. The FMIA's express preemption clause prohibits states from imposing marking, labeling, or packaging requirements that are "in addition to, or different than" those made under the Act. A state passes a consumer protection law requiring all ground meat sold in the state to display a "safe handling" instruction label with specific wording and graphics mandated by the state. The federal standards require a safe handling label but allow for different wording and graphics.

Is the state's specific labeling requirement preempted by the FMIA? Select one.

No, because the state is regulating for the health and safety of its citizens, which is a valid exercise of its police powers.
No, because the state requirement complements the federal purpose of ensuring food safety, so it does not conflict with federal law.
Yes, because the state's requirement for specific wording and graphics is "in addition to, or different than" the more flexible federal standard. (correct answer)
Yes, because it is physically impossible for a manufacturer to use both the federally approved label and the state-mandated label on the same package.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The state law imposes a labeling requirement that is both "in addition to" (by mandating specific graphics) and "different than" (by mandating specific wording not required federally) the federal rules. This falls squarely within the scope of the FMIA's express preemption clause. A is incorrect because state police powers, while broad, must yield to federal law under the Supremacy Clause when Congress has validly preempted state action. B is incorrect because even if the state law shares a similar purpose, it is preempted if it falls within the express preemption clause's language. D is incorrect because it is not impossible; a manufacturer could try to design a label that includes both, but the state law is preempted regardless of physical possibility due to the express preemption clause.

Question 5

Congress passes a statute, the "National Railroad Improvement Act," which sets maximum train speeds on all interstate railway lines. The Act is silent on the issue of preemption. A city has a local ordinance that sets a lower maximum train speed for tracks that run through a densely populated residential area, citing numerous accidents at a specific crossing. A railroad company is fined for violating the local speed limit while complying with the higher federal maximum speed.

The railroad company challenges the local ordinance. Which of the following is the city's best defense? Select one.

The ordinance is a valid exercise of local police power to address a specific, localized safety hazard not considered by the federal statute. (correct answer)
The federal statute does not expressly preempt local laws, therefore the ordinance is presumptively valid.
The ordinance does not create an undue burden on interstate commerce.
The federal statute violates the Tenth Amendment by regulating an area of traditional local concern.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. This question tests the limits of implied preemption. While federal railroad safety regulations are comprehensive, courts have sometimes allowed local speed ordinances that are justified by specific, unique local safety hazards that federal regulations do not address. This is the city's strongest argument against a claim of conflict or field preemption. B is a true statement but is not a complete defense; preemption can be implied. A provides the substantive reason why implied preemption should not be found. C relates to the dormant Commerce Clause, a different constitutional doctrine. D is incorrect because the Commerce Clause gives Congress ample authority to regulate interstate railways, and this does not violate the Tenth Amendment.

Question 6

The federal Copyright Act grants exclusive rights to authors of original works. The Act expressly preempts all state law rights that are "equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright." An artist creates a painting and sells it to a collector. Under the state's law, an artist retains the right to receive a royalty payment every time their work is resold. The collector resells the painting for a large profit, and the artist sues in state court to collect the royalty provided by the state statute.

The collector argues the state law is preempted by the Copyright Act. Is the collector's argument likely to succeed? Select one.

No, because the state law creates a right to resale royalties, which is a right not granted by and therefore not equivalent to the exclusive rights in the Copyright Act. (correct answer)
No, because the regulation of contracts and property sales is a traditional power of the states not displaced by federal copyright law.
Yes, because the state law interferes with the collector's exclusive right of distribution, which includes the right to resell the work.
Yes, because the Copyright Act is a comprehensive scheme that occupies the entire field of intellectual property.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The key to preemption under the Copyright Act is whether the state-created right is "equivalent" to one of the exclusive federal rights (reproduction, distribution, etc.). The federal Copyright Act does not grant a right to resale royalties (a "droit de suite"). Because the state law creates a new and different right, it is not equivalent to the rights within the scope of copyright and thus is not preempted. B is too broad; many state contract laws can be preempted if they are equivalent to copyright. C is incorrect because the federal right of distribution is limited by the "first sale doctrine," which allows the owner of a copy to resell it; the state law does not prevent resale, but attaches a condition to it. D is incorrect because copyright does not occupy the entire field of intellectual property (e.g., patent and trademark are separate fields).

Question 7

You are representing a pharmaceutical company. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved your client's new drug and its warning label after a rigorous review process. A federal regulation states that a manufacturer may not change an approved label without prior FDA approval. A patient who took the drug and suffered a severe side effect sued your client in state court. The lawsuit alleges a state common law claim for failure to warn, arguing that your client should have included a stronger warning on the drug's label based on post-approval studies.

What is your client's strongest preemption-based defense against the state tort claim? Select one.

The claim is preempted because federal law occupies the entire field of pharmaceutical safety.
The claim is preempted under impossibility preemption because your client could not have unilaterally changed the FDA-approved label to comply with state tort law. (correct answer)
The claim is expressly preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which forbids any state requirements for drug labels.
The claim is not preempted because tort remedies are a traditional area of state control that is rarely subject to federal preemption.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This scenario is based on landmark Supreme Court cases (Wyeth v. Levine had a different outcome, but the impossibility argument is central). The strongest defense is impossibility preemption. If federal law (the FDA regulation) prohibits the company from changing the label without prior FDA approval, and state law would impose liability for not changing the label, it is impossible to comply with both. The company is caught between the federal prohibition and the state-law duty. A is incorrect because the Court has generally held the field is not entirely occupied, allowing some state tort claims. C is incorrect as it states an overly broad express preemption that doesn't exist in the FDCA. D is a correct statement of the presumption against preemption but is not a defense; it is the argument the plaintiff would make.

Question 8

A federal statute aims to promote the development of renewable energy by providing tax credits to producers of wind power. The statute is silent on the issue of state regulation. A state, seeking to protect its scenic vistas, enacts a law that prohibits the construction of any wind turbines over 100 feet tall. This height restriction makes it economically unfeasible to operate wind farms in the state, effectively preventing any company from taking advantage of the federal tax credits there.

A wind energy company challenges the state law. Which doctrine provides the company's most promising argument that the state law is invalid? Select one.

Obstacle preemption, because the state law stands as an obstacle to accomplishing the full purpose of Congress to encourage wind power development. (correct answer)
Express preemption, because the federal tax credit implicitly forbids states from interfering with wind farm construction.
Field preemption, because by providing tax credits, Congress has occupied the entire field of energy policy.
Impossibility preemption, because it is impossible for the company to build economically viable turbines and comply with the state height restriction.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The federal law's purpose is to encourage wind power development. The state law, while not directly contradicting a federal command, effectively frustrates that purpose by making wind farms unviable. This is the essence of obstacle preemption. B is incorrect because the statute is silent on state regulation, so there is no express preemption. C is incorrect because a tax credit scheme is not nearly comprehensive enough to occupy the entire field of energy policy, a traditional area of state regulation. D is incorrect because impossibility preemption requires a conflict between two direct commands (e.g., "you must do X" vs. "you must not do X"). Here, the federal law does not command the building of tall turbines, it only encourages it.

Question 9

Is the state's specific labeling requirement preempted by the FMIA? Select one.

No, because the state is regulating for the health and safety of its citizens, which is a valid exercise of its police powers.
No, because the state requirement complements the federal purpose of ensuring food safety, so it does not conflict with federal law.
Yes, because the state's requirement for specific wording and graphics is "in addition to, or different than" the more flexible federal standard. (correct answer)
Yes, because it is physically impossible for a manufacturer to use both the federally approved label and the state-mandated label on the same package.

Question 10

The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains a provision that preempts state and local regulations that "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." A city, exercising its traditional zoning authority, denies a permit for a wireless company to build a 150-foot cell tower in a residential neighborhood zoned for single-family homes. The company sues the city, arguing the permit denial is preempted by the federal Act.

What is the city's strongest argument that its zoning decision is not preempted? Select one.

The Act includes a savings clause that preserves local zoning authority, allowing cities to make aesthetic and land-use decisions without federal interference.
The denial of a single permit does not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of service, as the company could potentially build a tower in a different, properly zoned location. (correct answer)
The city's zoning power is a fundamental aspect of state sovereignty protected by the Tenth Amendment, which cannot be preempted by federal statute.
The federal Act only preempts regulations that explicitly discriminate against new entrants in the telecommunications market, which the zoning ordinance does not.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The express preemption clause is triggered only if the local regulation has the effect of prohibiting service. Courts have interpreted this to mean a general ban or a policy that makes entry into the market impossible. The denial of a permit for one specific location, based on traditional zoning criteria, does not necessarily amount to a general prohibition of service. The city's best defense is that the company has other options to provide service. A is incorrect because the Act's savings clause for zoning is not absolute; it does not save zoning laws that do have the effect of prohibiting service. C is incorrect as the Commerce Clause power allows Congress to preempt state and local laws, including zoning, that affect telecommunications. D misstates the scope of the preemption clause, which is broader than just anti-competitive regulations.

Question 11

A federal law is enacted to standardize the training and certification requirements for commercial truck drivers engaged in interstate commerce. A federal agency issues detailed regulations under the law. The law is silent on preemption. A state, which has historically had very high safety standards, continues to enforce its own law requiring interstate truck drivers who operate within its borders to complete an additional state-specific safety course and pass a state-administered exam.

A trucking association sues to enjoin the enforcement of the state's requirements. What is the association's strongest argument for preemption? Select one.

The state law impermissibly burdens interstate commerce by requiring drivers to obtain multiple certifications.
The federal regulatory scheme for driver certification is so comprehensive that it impliedly preempts any supplemental state requirements. (correct answer)
It is impossible for a driver to hold both a federal certification and a state certification at the same time.
The state law violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV by discriminating against out-of-state drivers.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. When a federal agency enacts detailed and comprehensive regulations in a particular area, such as the qualification of commercial drivers, courts are likely to find an implied intent to occupy the field. The goal of such federal schemes is often uniformity, which would be undermined by a patchwork of state-specific additional requirements. This is the core of a field preemption argument. A describes a dormant Commerce Clause argument, which is a plausible but different constitutional claim. Preemption under the Supremacy Clause is the more direct argument. C is incorrect; it is clearly not impossible to obtain both certifications. D is incorrect because the law applies to all drivers operating in the state, not just out-of-state drivers, making a Privileges and Immunities claim weaker.

Question 12

You are an attorney advising a state's environmental protection agency. The federal Clean Air Act sets minimum air quality standards but also contains a provision allowing states to seek a waiver from the EPA to enact their own, more stringent standards for vehicle emissions. The state you are advising has not sought such a waiver. The state agency is considering issuing a new regulation that would require all cars sold in the state to meet emission standards that are stricter than the federal minimums.

What advice should you give the agency regarding the proposed regulation? Select one.

The agency can enact the stricter standards under its inherent police power to protect public health, as the federal standards are only a floor, not a ceiling.
The regulation would likely be preempted because the Clean Air Act's waiver provision establishes the exclusive method for a state to depart from the federal standards. (correct answer)
The regulation is permissible as long as it does not make it physically impossible for manufacturers to sell cars that also meet the federal standards.
The regulation's validity depends on whether it imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce, rather than on preemption principles.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The structure of the Clean Air Act, which sets a federal standard and then provides a specific, exclusive path (the waiver process) for states to adopt stricter standards, implies that states may not adopt stricter standards through any other means. By creating a specific exception, Congress has occupied the field with respect to states that have not obtained a waiver. Therefore, the proposed regulation would be preempted. A is incorrect because the existence of the waiver provision indicates the federal standards are not merely a floor for any state to exceed at will. C incorrectly applies the impossibility preemption standard to a situation where the statutory scheme implies field or obstacle preemption. D shifts the focus to the dormant Commerce Clause, but the detailed federal statute makes preemption the primary issue.

Question 13

A federal statute regulates the interstate shipment of natural gas through pipelines, giving a federal agency the exclusive authority to set safety standards for these pipelines. The statute is silent regarding remedies for individuals harmed by pipeline accidents. A person is injured in an explosion caused by a pipeline that met all federal safety standards but was allegedly operated negligently. The injured person brings a state common law tort claim for negligence against the pipeline operator.

The operator argues the state tort claim is preempted. What is the injured person's best counterargument? Select one.

The federal statute does not expressly preempt state tort claims.
The state tort claim complements the federal scheme by providing compensation for victims, an area the federal statute does not address. (correct answer)
The Tenth Amendment reserves for the states the power to provide remedies for their injured citizens.
The operator's compliance with federal safety standards is irrelevant to a state negligence claim.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This argument highlights the presumption against preemption, especially in areas of traditional state control like tort law. Where a federal law regulates a technical field (like pipeline safety standards) but is silent on remedies for victims, courts are reluctant to find that Congress intended to preempt state tort law. A state tort claim for negligent operation can be seen as complementing the federal safety scheme rather than conflicting with it. A is a true but incomplete argument; preemption can be implied. B provides the substantive reason why implied preemption should not be found. C states a general principle of federalism but is less specific than B. D is an overstatement; compliance with federal standards is often relevant as evidence of due care, though not always dispositive.

Question 14

The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act includes a broad preemption clause: "No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this Act." After this Act was passed, a plaintiff brought a state-law fraud claim against a cigarette manufacturer, alleging that the manufacturer's advertisements falsely portrayed smoking as glamorous and safe, inducing the plaintiff to start smoking.

The manufacturer moves to dismiss the claim based on preemption. Is the state fraud claim likely preempted? Select one.

No, because common law claims like fraud are not considered "State law" for the purposes of express preemption clauses.
No, because the claim is not "based on smoking and health" but rather on the independent duty not to commit fraud.
Yes, because the fraud claim is fundamentally a challenge to the manufacturer's advertising and promotion based on health concerns. (correct answer)
Yes, because the federal government has completely occupied the field of tobacco regulation.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court has held that this preemption clause is broad and covers common law claims that would impose a duty on manufacturers with respect to their advertising based on health-related concerns. The plaintiff's fraud claim is that the ads falsely minimized health risks, which is a claim "based on smoking and health" and relates directly to "advertising or promotion." Therefore, it falls within the scope of the express preemption clause. A is incorrect; "State law" in preemption clauses generally includes common law duties. B makes a plausible but ultimately rejected distinction; the fraud is inextricably linked to health. D is incorrect because while federal regulation is significant, the preemption here is express, not implied field preemption.

Question 15

A trucking association sues to enjoin the enforcement of the state's requirements. What is the association's strongest argument for preemption? Select one.

The state law impermissibly burdens interstate commerce by requiring drivers to obtain multiple certifications.
The federal regulatory scheme for driver certification is so comprehensive that it impliedly preempts any supplemental state requirements. (correct answer)
It is impossible for a driver to hold both a federal certification and a state certification at the same time.
The state law violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV by discriminating against out-of-state drivers.

Question 16

A federal agency, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, issues a regulation requiring all new passenger cars to be equipped with a specific type of side-impact airbag system. A state legislature, believing this system to be inadequate, passes a law making it illegal to sell any new car in the state unless it is equipped with a more advanced, and more expensive, airbag system. A car manufacturer that complies with the federal standard seeks an injunction against the enforcement of the state law.

What is the manufacturer's best argument for why the state law is preempted? Select one.

The state law creates a direct conflict with the federal regulation, making it impossible for the manufacturer to install only the federally required system and still sell cars in the state.
The state law is expressly preempted by the text of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which preempts all state motor vehicle laws.
The state law is an obstacle to the federal objective of creating a uniform national standard for vehicle safety to reduce manufacturing costs. (correct answer)
The state law violates the Tenth Amendment by infringing on the federal government's exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This scenario presents a classic case of obstacle preemption. While it might not be physically impossible to comply with both (a manufacturer could install the more advanced system), the state law undermines the federal objective. Federal safety standards are often intended to create a uniform national market and balance safety with cost and feasibility. A state law imposing a different, more stringent standard frustrates this purpose. A is less accurate because impossibility preemption is a very high bar; a manufacturer could install the state-required system, which would also satisfy the federal minimum. B is incorrect because it assumes a fact not in evidence—that the Act contains such a broad express preemption clause. D incorrectly states the effect of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to the states, rather than limiting state power.

Question 17

Congress has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme, the Federal Aviation Act, which authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to regulate all aspects of aviation safety, including aircraft design, maintenance, and flight operations. The legislative history indicates a strong congressional intent to create a single, uniform system of safety regulation. A small town located near a major airport passes an ordinance that prohibits any aircraft from taking off or landing at the airport between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. to reduce noise pollution. An airline challenges the ordinance in federal court.

Is the town's ordinance likely to be held unconstitutional? Select one.

Yes, because federal regulation of aviation safety and airspace is so pervasive that it occupies the field, preempting local ordinances that regulate flight operations. (correct answer)
No, because noise control is a matter of local concern and a traditional exercise of the town's police power to protect the health and welfare of its residents.
Yes, but only if the airline can demonstrate that the ordinance makes it physically impossible to comply with FAA flight scheduling regulations.
No, unless the Federal Aviation Act contains a specific provision expressly preempting local noise ordinances.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Federal law has been held to occupy the field of aviation safety and control of navigable airspace. Local ordinances that intrude upon flight operations, such as curfews on takeoffs and landings, are preempted under the doctrine of field preemption. B is incorrect because even though noise control is a traditional local concern, it is preempted when it directly interferes with a field, like aviation, that is comprehensively regulated by the federal government. C is incorrect because it describes impossibility preemption, a narrower doctrine; field preemption is the appropriate analysis here, and it does not require a showing of impossibility. D is incorrect because preemption can be implied (as with field preemption) even without an express preemption clause.

Question 18

A group of legally present aliens challenges the state registration law. What is the most likely basis for a court to invalidate the state law? Select one.

The state law violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against aliens.
The state law is preempted because federal immigration law occupies the entire field of alien registration. (correct answer)
The state law is an unconstitutional tax on a federal activity.
The state law is preempted only if it is physically impossible for an alien to register with both the state and federal governments.

Question 19

The railroad company challenges the local ordinance. Which of the following is the city's best defense? Select one.

The ordinance is a valid exercise of local police power to address a specific, localized safety hazard not considered by the federal statute. (correct answer)
The federal statute does not expressly preempt local laws, therefore the ordinance is presumptively valid.
The ordinance does not create an undue burden on interstate commerce.
The federal statute violates the Tenth Amendment by regulating an area of traditional local concern.

Question 20

What is the city's strongest argument that its zoning decision is not preempted? Select one.

The Act includes a savings clause that preserves local zoning authority, allowing cities to make aesthetic and land-use decisions without federal interference.
The denial of a single permit does not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of service, as the company could potentially build a tower in a different, properly zoned location. (correct answer)
The city's zoning power is a fundamental aspect of state sovereignty protected by the Tenth Amendment, which cannot be preempted by federal statute.
The federal Act only preempts regulations that explicitly discriminate against new entrants in the telecommunications market, which the zoning ordinance does not.