A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 1-08 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to regulations or plans adopted by international organizations.
Summary
HB 1089 would add a new section to North Dakota law declaring that any agenda, plan, or resolution adopted by the United Nations that directly names North Dakota or one of its political subdivisions and directly infringes on or restricts the property rights of a state resident is void and ineffective in the state. The bill is framed as a limitation on the local effect of certain international-organizational actions, rather than a general rejection of all international standards or recommendations.
The measure also makes clear that the Legislative Assembly or a local governing body could still choose to enact a law that is similar or identical to a United Nations agenda, plan, or resolution. In practice, the bill would create a state-law barrier against direct enforcement of specified UN actions, while preserving state and local legislative discretion to adopt comparable policies on their own terms.
Impact
If enacted, HB 1089 would have amended Chapter 1-08 of the North Dakota Century Code by creating a new rule that certain UN-adopted agendas, plans, or resolutions have no legal force in North Dakota when they directly target the state or its subdivisions and restrict property rights. The bill would not have changed federal law or the authority of the United Nations, but it would have signaled that such international measures cannot operate automatically as state law. Its practical effect would have been limited to state and local legal interpretation, especially in disputes involving property rights and alleged foreign or international policy influence.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had support from its sponsors and a bloc of House members, but it ultimately failed on second reading in the House by a vote of 38 yeas to 53 nays on January 29, 2025. The vote suggests that the proposal drew meaningful opposition and did not command majority support. No committee transcript is available, so the public record here reflects the floor vote more than detailed committee debate.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of United Nations actions and whether North Dakota should preemptively declare them ineffective when they affect property rights. Supporters likely viewed the bill as protecting state sovereignty and private property from outside influence, while opponents likely saw it as unnecessary, symbolic, or legally problematic because it targets international resolutions that do not ordinarily have direct force in state law. The property-rights trigger and the focus on UN actions naming the state or its subdivisions are the bill’s most distinctive and potentially controversial features.