In the case of Garrett, who sued the state for prohibiting his boat operation, how did the court likely rule regarding the conflict between state law and federal law?

The ruling in this scenario likely hinged on the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law in cases of conflict. When Garrett sued the state for prohibiting his boat operation, the court would have analyzed whether the state law stood in direct conflict with federal regulations governing similar activities, especially if federal law provided specific standards or permissions for boat operations.

If the court found that the federal law was intended to regulate boat operations comprehensively, it would conclude that the state law limiting Garrett's operation was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the authority granted by federal law. This would reaffirm the principle that states cannot enact legislation that undermines federal policies, thereby reinforcing the hierarchy of laws where federal statutes prevail.

In contrast, the other choices suggest alternative outcomes. The validation of the state law under state rights would imply that states have broader autonomy in matters of local governance, contradicting the supremacy clause. Simply stating that the federal law supersedes all state laws does not capture the nuance of the court's examination of specific conflicts or intentions behind the laws. Lastly, a dismissal due to jurisdiction issues would propose that the court did not engage with the substance of the law in question, which is less likely if the case involved a direct