When state fair housing laws are stricter than federal laws, which should be followed?

When state fair housing laws are stricter than federal laws, the state's fair housing law should be followed. This is because state laws can provide greater protections to individuals than federal laws. The principle of federalism allows states to enact legislation that may offer more comprehensive safeguarding against discrimination and may expand the categories of protected classes beyond what is outlined at the federal level.

For example, if federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability, a state law could include additional protections for categories such as sexual orientation or gender identity. Adhering to the state's stricter regulations ensures that individuals receive the maximum protection against housing discrimination possible.

The other choices pose inaccuracies or misunderstandings about the relationship between state and federal laws. Federal law does not always override state law; instead, it acts as a baseline with states having the ability to set higher standards. Ignoring both laws would lead to a violation of legal obligations and disregard for the protections afforded to individuals. Following the less restrictive law would not serve the intent of ensuring comprehensive fair housing practices.