BATON ROUGE, La. (May 21, 2024) – Yesterday, the Louisiana Senate gave final approval to a bill that would prohibit state and local cooperation with rules and mandates that may be imposed by international organizations, including the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO). The legislation now moves to Gov. Jeff Landry’s office for his consideration.
Sen. Thomas Pressly and two cosponsors introduced Senate Bill 133 (SB133) on Feb. 29. The proposed law declares, “The World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction or power within the state of Louisiana.”
The bill then takes a practical step to attempt to limit their impact in the state by barring state and local cooperation with their rules, regulations, and mandates.
“No rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or implemented by the state of Louisiana or any agency, department, board, commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish, municipality, or any other political entity.”
On May 15, the House passed SB133 by a 69-22 vote with an amendment giving the proposed law an immediate effective date. The Senate had previously passed the measure by a 37-0 vote. On May 20, the Senate approved the amendment by a 37-0 margin, sending the bill to the governor.
IN PRACTICE
It remains unclear how SB133 would play out in effect. There is no mechanism in the legislation to determine that a policy was implemented by an international agency. The proposed law also lacks a process to distinguish between international and U.S. government mandates or policies recommended by these international organizations but voluntarily implemented vs recommended by various government agencies in the U.S. – federal, state, and local.
But there is no doubt that the enactment of the law would hinder the enforcement of any policy the state refused to cooperate with.
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from the states.
This is just as true when it comes to international bodies – probably more. These institutions have no enforcement mechanism of their own. All of their power is based on voluntary compliance and enforcement by local jurisdictions.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations, and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “States are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
This enforcement problem is magnified when it comes to international bodies such as the WHO and the UN.
LEGAL BASIS
Some might argue that Louisiana is obligated to enforce WHO or UN mandates due to treaties, but this doesn’t state up to legal scrutiny.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the federal government can’t commandeer state and local resources for its own purposes. Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, states are sovereign entities and can direct their resources as they see fit. It logically follows that international organizations can’t commander state and local resources either. Even if the U.S. government is obligated to enforce some U.N. mandate based on a treaty, it doesn’t follow that state and local governments must also enforce the same.
The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.
WHAT’S NEXT
Gov. Landry will have 10 days to sign or veto SB133 if it is transmitted to his desk during the session, or 20 days to sign if it is transmitted with less than 10 days remaining in the session. The legislature is scheduled to adjourn no later than June 3. If he takes no action, the bill will become law without his signature.
- South Carolina Bills Would Exclude CBDC From the State Definition of Money - December 12, 2024
- South Carolina Defend the Guard Act Would Push Back Against Unconstitutional War Powers - December 11, 2024
- Missouri Bill Would Create State Process to Circumvent Qualified Immunity - December 11, 2024