Senate committee hears S.148 debate as advocates warn of grant, safety and legal risks

At an April 30 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, lawmakers and witnesses debated S.148, a bill that would limit how Vermont law enforcement and state agencies share information and use state facilities, equipment, money and personnel in matters involving federal immigration authorities.

Legislative counsel Beno Vergoski opened the committee’s discussion by summarizing the bill’s core limits and exceptions. “So for the committee today is s 1 48, which we, previously did a walk through of. But as a quick refresher, essentially, this outlines the limits of law enforcement, I guess, collaboration with federal immigration authorities. It places restrictions on information sharing, use of resources, money, facility, property, equipment, personnel, and further extending civil, criminal, federal immigration investigation or proceeding unless there is a, judicially issued warrant or an independent investigation unrelated to immigration enforcement,” Vergoski said.

Why it matters: supporters and immigrant‑legal advocates said the measure would reduce a chilling effect that they say is deterring people from seeking medical care, calling police or using other public services. Opponents — including the Department of Public Safety, a law‑enforcement representative from the state’s attorneys and sheriffs, and federal‑partner task‑force officials — warned the proposed statute risks conflict with federal law, could trigger federal litigation or grant losses and would impair law‑enforcement investigations and emergency response.

Immigration‑legal advocates described on‑the‑ground impacts they say the bill would address. Jill Martin Diaz, executive director of the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project, told senators that immigrants in Vermont are avoiding routine activities because of enforcement actions and data‑driven enforcement. “The number 1 way that a Vermonter is currently becoming, entangled in the detention and enforcement system is driving. Traffic stops are the number 1 pipeline,” Martin Diaz said, adding that her organization is litigating bond motions in Texas immigration courts and providing asylum assistance to children after recent funding cuts.

State legal and public‑safety witnesses described legal and operational concerns. A representative of the state’s attorneys and sheriffs warned that the bill as drafted could conflict with federal statutes and with existing Vermont law that requires agencies to maintain a fair and impartial policing policy. “If this bill passed as written and stated that, you know, law enforcement agency or officer or other persons acting on behalf knowingly provided any information, regarding civil or criminal federal immigration investigations or proceeding, that would put law enforcement agencies in direct violation with federal law,” the representative said.

Vermont Department of Public Safety Commissioner Jennifer Morrison testified that the department “strongly opposes s 148.” She outlined specific federal grants and programs she said would be at risk if the state could not certify compliance with federal law, naming emergency‑management and homeland‑security funding, forensic laboratory grants, and task‑force and traffic‑safety grants. Morrison described the possible operational effects on the state emergency operations center, forensic testing capacity and regional intelligence and evidence teams, and said losing federal grant funding would reduce staff and equipment the state now relies on to respond to disasters, crashes and major crimes.

Law‑enforcement task‑force leaders told the committee that many local multi‑agency operations already partner with federal investigators but do not perform immigration enforcement. Matt Raymond, commander of a child‑exploitation task force that works with Homeland Security Investigations, said, “we have never, done any type of immigration enforcement.” He and other task‑force witnesses described multi‑agency evidence sharing needed to investigate crimes such as trafficking and child exploitation and said facility‑ and data‑sharing restrictions could weaken that work.

Legal counsel to the committee and other participants explored constitutional questions the bill raises, including the anti‑commandeering doctrine, federal supremacy and circuit‑court splits over whether and when the federal government may require states or localities to provide information or accept grant conditions. Witnesses cited federal statutes and court decisions often discussed in this field (see authorities list below). Several witnesses cautioned that while some components of the bill mirror existing statutory model policy language, the bill’s broad phrasing — especially a prohibition on “any information” — could be read to conflict with federal obligations and with the provision in Vermont’s Fair and Impartial Policing (FIP) framework that preserves required federal cooperation.

Committee context and next steps: senators asked whether the bill should be narrower — for example, focused on particular agencies or on law‑enforcement personnel only — and whether protections should explicitly include non‑law‑enforcement state agencies such as human services or motor vehicle services. Witnesses said the current FIP policy already restricts the voluntary sharing of identifiable health and location information while acknowledging the federal statute specifically protects voluntary sharing of citizenship or immigration status information in response to federal requests. Lawmakers and executive‑branch witnesses said the Office of the Governor and the Department of Corrections are negotiating a detention memorandum of understanding (MOU) with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement; witnesses and some senators discussed whether the MOU, which expires in August, could be revised to limit use of Vermont facilities for detainees who are not charged or tried in Vermont courts.

Formal votes or enactments were not taken on S.148 at the hearing. The Senate previously voted 56–0 (tally provided by a witness at the hearing) to advance a separate measure creating an Office of New Americans; that vote was described as having moved that separate item to the House.

Ending note: the committee scheduled further work and a joint session to examine the FIP policy and the practical effects of information‑sharing limits. Witnesses on both sides urged the legislature to weigh the tradeoffs between statutory protections aimed at reducing chilling effects on immigrants and the risks of federal preemption, litigation, and curtailed federal funding that could affect emergency management, forensic services and multi‑agency criminal investigations.