Witnesses tell House Judiciary Committee Vermont schools already require judicial warrants for law-enforcement entry; urge careful drafting of model policy

Pietro Lynn, an attorney with the firm Lynn Lynn Blackman and Tuohy who represents almost all Vermont school districts, told the House Judiciary Committee on April 30 that Vermont schools require a judicial warrant before allowing law-enforcement officers to enter school buildings.

"When law enforcement seeks to enter a school building, we require a warrant, a judicial warrant in order to let them in," Lynn said, adding that schools are not a "clearing house for the police" and do not collect or provide student immigration status under FERPA.

The testimony, given during a committee hearing on legislation that would direct the Agency of Education to develop a model policy about law-enforcement access to schools (drafts referenced as H.511/H.5.11), centered on four issues: current school practice; limits on information schools collect and disclose; potential legal risk to local school officials if the statute is misread or misapplied; and whether a model policy should cover all law enforcement rather than only immigration enforcement.

Why it matters: Witnesses said the practical issue is protecting students and school staff while avoiding actions that could expose school employees to federal prosecution. Lynn warned that adding a statutory immunity provision that only shields state-law liability may mislead school administrators into thinking they are protected from federal charges.

Lynn told the committee he and his clients "do not allow law enforcement to enter schools, as an opportunity for them to engage in investigation" and said principals typically will call legal counsel or a superintendent for guidance when federal officials present paperwork. "If they have a judicial warrant, they're not gonna wait," he said. "If you don't let them enter, they will enter forcibly." He urged training for school officials to distinguish judicial warrants from administrative paperwork.

Falco Schilling, advocacy director for ACLU of Vermont, said his organization supports a statewide process to develop a model policy and recommended the policy address public versus private spaces, internal procedures, and a designated, trained point person who would handle law-enforcement requests on site. Schilling also urged expanding the proposal to cover all law enforcement rather than singling out immigration officials.

"One of the easiest things is signage," Schilling said, describing simple steps schools can take to mark public and private spaces. He and other witnesses recommended routine training and clearer procedures so school staff know when to consult counsel.

Emily Simmons, general counsel for the Vermont Agency of Education, said the agency issued guidance in January and that the memorandum is posted to the committee page. The guidance reiterates that students need not show immigration status to enroll, that schools "do not need and should not be collecting information beyond proof of residency," and that FERPA restricts disclosure of student records unless a judicial warrant or certain subpoenas apply.

Simmons cautioned lawmakers that a statute may not change the existing legal reality and that a requirement for a single, highly detailed statewide model policy may not fit every campus. "When we're talking about the ins and outs of things that happen at the physical plant of schools — the number of buildings, the size of the campus, the location of doors — we're gonna find really, really diverse realities in every single one of our school buildings," she said, adding that the agency prefers to provide guidance where practicable.

Sue Zaglowski, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association (VSBA), said VSBA already maintains a model access-control policy and urged close collaboration between VSBA and the Agency of Education if the legislature directs the agency to issue a model policy. She noted a prior model policy required by the legislature (a behavioral threat-assessment model) was delayed and produced content concerns that the VSBA and AOE are still revising.

Zaglowski recommended allowing ample time for the agency to draft and for school boards to adopt any model policy, suggesting a year for development and several months for school boards to complete adoption procedures.

Committee members pressed witnesses on specific provisions in the Winooski school district's policy, which several witnesses pointed to as more detailed than the draft statutory language. The Winooski policy was described as requiring immigration agents to provide credentials and a warrant signed by a federal or state judge "which specifies the name of the person under arrest" for entry; if agents refuse to wait for superintendent authorization, staff "will not obstruct, block, or delay the agent's entry, but will inform the administration immediately."

On immunity language, witnesses including Lynn and Schilling warned that Vermont can only grant immunity from state prosecution and that such language may give school staff a false sense of protection from federal enforcement actions. Lynn said, "this statute . . . does nothing to insulate school officials from federal criminal exposure." Schilling added that model-policy work should include training about what liabilities might remain.

Multiple witnesses and committee members suggested the model policy be broadened to cover interactions with all law-enforcement officers, not only immigration authorities, and that the VSBA, Agency of Education and Attorney General's office — plus other stakeholders including local law enforcement — be part of drafting.

The hearing produced no formal committee votes on the legislation. Committee members discussed timelines in the draft — one version required the Agency of Education to complete a model policy by Dec. 1 and have it adopted by Dec. 31 — and witnesses urged earlier publication to give districts time to implement training before the next school year.

The committee received these written and verbal materials on the record: the Winooski district policy; ACLU national guidance on immigration enforcement in schools; the Agency of Education's January guidance memo; and the VSBA model policy manual.

Next steps: Committee members signaled interest in continuing the drafting process, considering testimony that a statewide model policy could help reassure families while emphasizing the need for careful wording, training requirements, and collaboration between the Agency of Education and VSBA. No formal action was taken during the hearing.