Committee considers H.511, would bar ICE from nonpublic school areas without judicial warrant

Representative Greer, sponsor of H.511, told the House Health & Judiciary Committee on April 30 that the bill "would require Vermont schools to adopt policies restricting the entry of federal immigration authorities into non public areas of school buildings if they do not have a judicial warrant." The committee voted to take up the short-form bill at the start of the session.

The bill would direct each school to adopt an access-control and visitor management policy that, at minimum, requires employees to refuse entry to a "federal immigration authority" into nonpublic areas (for example, classrooms) unless the authority presents a judicial warrant. Legislative counsel Rick Segal said the draft also clarifies that "a federal immigration detainer or other warrant or request from a federal immigration authority shall not constitute a judicial warrant." Subsection language in the draft would also preserve an exception for exigent or emergency circumstances unrelated to immigration enforcement.

The proposal includes a state-directed implementation step: the Agency of Education, in coordination with the Office of the Attorney General, would develop a model policy "on or before 12/01/2025" and distribute it to schools by 12/31/2025, according to the text Rick Segal described. Segal also noted an existing Vermont statute (16 VSA a7 1484) that already requires schools to adopt access-control and visitor-management practices such as locked exterior doors and centralized sign-ins; H.511 would require a minimum standard that schools must meet or exceed.

Committee members pressed sponsors and counsel on legal scope and risks. Some members said they were concerned the state could be overreaching into a federal domain, that the measure might risk federal pushback or funding consequences, and that the immunity clause in the draft needed clarification. Segal advised that the immunity provision, as written, would protect a school employee who in good faith denies access from "any prosecution that may result from denial of access," and he recommended the bill explicitly specify that such immunity covers state prosecution, not federal prosecution.

Members also sought practical clarifications the bill would require schools to address: how to define "nonpublic areas" of a school (Segal suggested areas beyond the lobby or public check-in are private, while playgrounds and exterior areas may be gray), what forms count as judicial warrants (Segal contrasted DHS/ICE administrative documents such as I-200 or I-205 with federal arrest-warrant forms signed by a judge), and whether schools already have authority to adopt such visitor restrictions (Segal said many schools can and do set these local policies and that Winooski had adopted a stricter local policy).

Witnesses and legislators discussed operational questions the bill would leave to schools and state agencies: training for a designated school contact to review warrant documents, the role of school attorneys in close cases, whether schools could be used to harbor nonstudents (Segal acknowledged the bill would, as drafted, require a judicial warrant before federal agents enter private school areas and that could apply regardless of whether the person in the space is a student), and how to handle exigent circumstances such as an active shooter or other emergency, which the draft exempts from the judicial-warrant requirement.

Several members asked legal counsel to check whether denying access in reliance on an administrative ICE document could expose school staff to federal obstruction charges; Segal said his research so far shows those administrative warrants do not by themselves confer authority to enter private areas in the same way a judicial arrest warrant would, but he said he would confirm whether federal obstruction or other claims could follow.

No final passage vote on H.511 occurred; the committee took up the bill for consideration and heard legal and policy testimony and questions. The committee also directed staff and witnesses to help develop the model policy and to provide additional evidence and standard-operating-procedure examples before further action.

Representative Greer and legislative counsel emphasized that the draft is intended to set a minimum state standard for school visitor and access policies, not to prevent schools from adopting stricter protections. Segal said the bill27s focus is limited to immigration enforcement entities as defined in the draft27s reference to the state27s fair-and-impartial-policing policy, which lists DHS, ICE and Customs and Border Protection among the covered entities.

"If it's an I-200 or I-205, you know, this is a civil warrant, and they don't have probable cause to come in," Segal said in committee testimony. "It is not a judicial warrant." Representative Greer said she brought H.511 after school board members expressed concern that immigration enforcement actions could disrupt learning and deter families from attending school.

The committee did not adopt final language. Members asked for more data and for legislative counsel and the Agency of Education to provide model procedures and guidance; Segal said the AOE and the Attorney General's office would work on a model policy if the committee advances the bill. The bill text Segal described sets a deadline for that model policy (12/01/2025) and for distribution to districts (12/31/2025).

The committee will continue consideration after receiving follow-up materials, including (per members' requests) documented examples of federal immigration officers entering schools, applicable standard operating procedures, and legal analysis of federal-state interactions and the limits of any state-granted immunity.