do not consider the likelihood that the Commission would apply the Ordinance to other persons who cooperate with military recruiters by renting them office space, running their advertisements, and so forth. We also intimate no opinion as to whether the application of the Ordinance to such persons would run afoul of the supremacy clause. 9 . Lambda has represented to this court that 48 municipalities, 11 counties, and 7 states currently have ordinances that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 10 . Likewise, we reject the Task Force’s assertion that the fact that Congress chose not to enact such a mandatory "right of access" somehow determines the question before us. Cf. Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 155, 102 S.Ct. at 3023 (<HOLDING>). 11 . The record does indicate, however, that
holding that the federal district courts dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims deprived the court of its jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims arising from the same incident holding that requiring a permit and the restoration of the land after the mining operations had concluded did not preempt federal law however the court did recognize that where a state regulation rendered it impossible to exercise a right granted through federal legislation that state regulation would be in conflict with the federal right holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court holding that the conflict between state and federal law does not evaporate because the federal home loan bank boards regulation simply permits but does not compel federal savings and loans to include dueonsale clauses in their contracts the california cotuts have forbidden a federal savings and loan to enforce a dueonsale clause at its option and have deprived the lender of the flexibility given it by the board holding that federal proceedings should have been dismissed where the subject matter of the lawsuit in the federal district court in volved the review of oil drilling permits by a state agency because the state had established its own review system for the permits and a federal court ruling would have an impermissibly disruptive affect on state policy for management of the oil fields