Which of the following can states do in relation to federal laws?

States can indeed provide more rights to their citizens than are guaranteed by federal law. This practice is rooted in the principle of federalism, which allows states to enact laws that reflect the specific needs and values of their populations, so long as those laws do not violate federal law. For instance, if federal law sets a minimum standard for certain rights, states can choose to enact laws that offer greater protections or rights. This flexibility allows states to respond to local concerns and priorities, and it empowers them to enhance individual rights beyond what federal law establishes.

The other options lack the same level of accuracy. While states must adhere to federal law, they are not strictly bound to its minimum standards, allowing for the possibility of greater local rights. Furthermore, the notion that states have no authority to deviate from federal law overlooks the principle of states’ rights, which permits variance as long as it does not infringe upon federally mandated rights. Lastly, while states can challenge federal law in court, that does not mean they can ignore or deviate from it; such challenges are conducted within the framework of the judicial system, and outcomes depend on legal rulings.