§ 41713(b)). While it is true that “a law, regulation, or other provision” is not directly modified by the word “State,” when the provision is read as a whole, it is clear that a State is the political body that would be enacting or enforcing its own laws and regulations. In other words, for preemption to be triggered, the law in question must be of a State, which the statute clearly defines. Other sub-sections of the'provision support this interpretation. See, e.g., § 41713(b)(3) (recognizing that the preemption provision does not limit a State from “carrying out its proprietary powers and rights”). Read this way, the word “enforce” in the provision still has meaning outside of entertaining lawsuits brought under foreign law: “enforce” extends the scope of the 755-56 (Tex.2003) (<HOLDING>)). Instead, the claims were preempted because
holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract holding that if the usps abridged the plaintiffs contract rights the proper recourse would be a breachofcontract claim not a takings claim holding breachofcontract claim preempted because the plaintiff tried to enlarge the federal rights that were incorporated into the contract holding breachofcontract claim was preempted holding breachofcontract claim preempted because contract did not explicitly incorporate a federallaw provision