Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental Directives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects bill that would bar enforcement of intergovernmental health directives
Summary
The South Dakota House voted 32-37 on Feb. 18 to reject House Bill 11‑52, which would have barred enforcement or implementation of directives from intergovernmental organizations; sponsor said the measure aimed to protect state sovereignty, while opponents warned it could interfere with international research partnerships.
PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota House of Representatives on Feb. 18 rejected House Bill 11‑52, an act that would have prohibited state and local officials from enforcing or implementing directives issued by intergovernmental organizations, in a 32‑37 vote.
Representative Veil Word, the bill’s sponsor, told the House the measure was intended as a proactive safeguard against future public‑health orders from international organizations similar to actions taken during the COVID‑19 pandemic. “The goal of this bill is to help protect South Dakota from another chain of events that would be similar to what we had with the various government reactions to COVID,” Veil Word said on the floor.
Supporters described the bill as a defense of state sovereignty and invoked the anti‑commandeering doctrine in constitutional law. Veil Word cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s Murphy v. NCAA decision and quoted Justice Samuel Alito that “a more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine” to explain the legal basis for resisting federal or international imposition on state policy.
Opponents argued the bill would be overly broad and could create practical problems for the state. One lawmaker raised concerns that the language — which would bar a “political subdivision of the state, including any employee” from implementing regulations from an intergovernmental organization — could interfere with the work of the Sanford Underground Research Facility and other collaborations that depend on international scientific partners. That representative warned the measure could hinder long‑standing research partnerships commissioned by federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Energy.
Representative Mike Mortensen asked the sponsor whether any specific, currently applicable regulation existed that the bill would block; Veil Word responded that she could not identify a present regulation but referenced proposed World Health Organization (WHO) amendments and said the bill was designed as a preventive step. Representative Morrison acknowledged the sponsor’s revisions and said those changes addressed some anti‑commandeering concerns but said the bill still lacked a specific problem it would solve.
After debate, the House voted; the clerk reported 32 ayes, 37 nays, and one member excused, and the bill was declared lost.
The bill’s text, as discussed on the floor, had been narrowed during committee deliberations: earlier versions reportedly included references to the Centers for Disease Control and a penalty provision. The sponsor said those elements were removed before the House debate.
With the vote, HB11‑52 will not move forward from this session unless reintroduced in a different form or at a later time.
