Senate Bill 133 was unanimously passed with bipartisan support to prevent policies declared by those international bodies from forming the basis for action in the Pelican State, with the bill stating the three organizations “shall have no jurisdiction or power within the state of Louisiana.” The legislation comes as the WHO, UN, and WEF are attempting to advance a global pandemic treaty, giving those organizations more control over how independent nations respond in the event of another pandemic. Last month, a consortium of 23 former national presidents, 22 former prime ministers, a former UN Secretary General, and three Nobel laureates made a plea for the global community to accelerate negotiations on a Pandemic Accord, under the Constitution of the WHO. SB 133 also comes as leaders push the need for more stringent global measures meant to reverse what are speculated to be negative outcomes attributable to climate change. Under Louisiana’s proposed law, no rule, regulation, fee, tax policy, or mandate of any kind from the [WHO, UN, and WEF] shall be enforced or implemented by the state or any agency, department, board, commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish, municipality, or any other political entity. If passed by the Louisiana House of Representatives and signed into law by the governor, SB 133 could open up legal questions about its enforceability. Whether an international agreement is legitimate vis-à-vis U.S. law depends on many factors, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), as stated in a 2023 report:The Louisiana Senate has passed legislation making the state independent from directives and mandates that originate from international institutions, including the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN), and World Economic Forum (WEF).
Self-executing treaties have a status equal to federal statutes, superior to U.S. state laws and inferior to the Constitution. Depending on their nature, executive agreements may or may not have a status equal to a federal statute. Non-self-executing provisions in treaties and executive agreements occupy a complex place in the U.S. legal system. While non-self-executing provisions bind the United States as a matter of international law, they do not create rights or obligations enforceable as domestic law in U.S. courts. However, some have argued that since the anti-commandeering doctrine, under the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, holds that the federal government cannot commandeer state and local resources for its own purposes, it follows that international bodies would not be able to either. State Sen. Valarie Hodges, who co-authored the bill, told The Blaze that the bill “comes after years of attempts to secure our state sovereignty from the overreaching hands of the WHO, U.N., and WEF.” "We have watched a horror story unfold in front of us as time has shown that the 'recommendations' and coercive regulations from outside organizations such as the WHO have harmed hundreds of thousands of Americans who took a vaccine that they were told was safe and effective," said Hodges. "Now, we are witnessing severe, long-term side effects and countless deaths because the 'experts' were wrong.”
