Are federal agencies exempt from complying with the Tenth Amendment such that they can deem State law 'irrelevant' and violate the individual rights of Massachusetts persons?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , The DEA relied exclusively on an internal agency precedent to declare that because private market actors on the Massachusetts medical board suspended the Petitioner’s medical license, he lost “state authority to dispense” controlled substances and so his Drug Enforcement Administration registration must be revoked. Petitioner responded that DEA was required to comply with § 824 (a)(3) of the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA), which requires DEA to comply with State law (Massachusetts General Laws ch. 94C § 7(f)) to determine whether the physician had indeed lost his “state authority to dispense.” State law divorces “state authority to dispense” from medical licensure and requires a specific statutory action by the Public Health Commissioner before a physician loses his “state authority to dispense.” The DEA agreed that the Commissioner has not taken any action, then countered that a new state regulation (105 CMR 700.120) “automatically voided” Petitioner’s “state authority to dispense,” that “the automatic effect of the regulation is identical to that of an individualized proceeding” and State law is “irrelevant” prior to a taking of his liberty / property interest. The court of appeals agreed that an “automatic” taking of a liberty / property interest is in “harmony” with State law and the Fifth Amendment. The questions presented are: 1. Are federal agencies exempt from complying with the Tenth ) Amendment such that they can deem State law “irrelevant” and violate the individual rights of Massachusetts persons? 2. Are “automatic” deprivations of liberty / property interests slipped in by a state agency’s regulation truly in “harmony” with the plain text of State law, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause, and the ban against bills of attainder, and can DEA rely on one to defy the plain text of the federal Controlled Substance Act which requires compliance with State law itself?