Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fair Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs adding citizenship and immigration status to public‑accommodations and housing protections
Summary
S.127 would add citizenship and immigration status to Vermont’s public‑accommodations and unfair‑housing statutes and require landlords conducting background or credit checks to accept one of three forms of identification. Counsel and committee members discussed risks, federal law interactions and carve‑outs for lenders and federal program rules.
The House Appropriations Committee reviewed language in S.127 that would add "citizenship and immigration status" as protected categories under Vermont’s public‑accommodations and unfair‑housing laws and would set minimum identification standards landlords must accept when conducting background or credit checks.
Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel, told the committee the bill would require landlords conducting a background or credit check to accept at least one of: an unexpired government‑issued identification, an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), or a Social Security number. "A residential rental application shall inform an applicant that the applicant may provide any of the above forms of identification," Wood said, describing changes the House General Committee made to the Senate language.
Counsel acknowledged the provision raises questions about collision with federal requirements. Committee members pressed for clarity on whether the state language could force landlords into conflict with federal law in cases where federal program dollars or federal rules require verification of lawful presence. Counsel said the House General Committee inserted a carve‑out drafted to address that concern: the bill states that verification or treatment required by federal law would not be an unlawful act under state statute to the extent federal law requires it.
Counsel warned the committee about legal uncertainty created by adding "immigration status" without the adjective "legal". "If this were to go into statute and you as a landlord say, 'you need to provide me with proof of legal residency' and you are not renting to individuals who may be here unlawfully, you are opening yourself up to a suit based on this language if it were to go into effect," Cameron Wood said. He explained courts would ultimately interpret whether the state protection extends to people who are not in the country lawfully.
Counsel also briefed the committee on federal criminal statutes concerning harboring and federal circuit court interpretations. He said multiple circuits, including the Second Circuit, have held that simply renting to someone who is present unlawfully, without additional action to shield that person from authorities, does not by itself constitute harboring under federal law.
Committee members pressed for a simpler fix — inserting the word "legal" before "immigration status" — but staff said the General Committee had considered that approach and chose language intended both to protect noncitizens from discrimination and to preserve lenders’ ability to consider immigration status where federal law allows. Counsel read language intended to reassure banking institutions that it would not be unlawful discrimination for a lender to consider a credit applicant's immigration status to the extent such status bears on loan repayment and consistent with federal law.
No floor action or committee vote on these provisions occurred in the hearing; committee members asked staff to return with clarifications on the scope of federal carve‑outs and how the landlord‑ID rules would operate in practice.
