Committee hears testimony on S.44, which clarifies governor approval for ICE agreements

The House Judiciary Committee on April 17 took testimony on S.44 (as passed by the Senate), a bill that would require the governor to approve any agreement entered into under 8 U.S.C. §1357(g) or 19 U.S.C. §1401 and would remove a standing exception that previously allowed state, county or municipal agencies to enter such agreements during declared emergencies.

S.44 "is a very brief bill," said Rick Sagle, Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Council, during the committee’s walk-through. "This is pretty unique. I don't think any other state has this arrangement," he said, describing the statute that currently requires governor approval and noting the Senate struck language that had allowed a local agency to enter an agreement during a state or national emergency.

The nut graf: The bill keeps governor approval as the controlling authority for any deputization or customs-designation agreements with federal immigration authorities and removes the emergency loophole in current statute; witnesses told the committee that, to their knowledge, Vermont currently has no active agreements of this type.

Why it matters: Agreements under 8 U.S.C. §1357(g) (commonly called 287(g) agreements) and 19 U.S.C. §1401 allow ICE or Customs officers to delegate certain federal enforcement authorities to state or local officers. Supporters of S.44 say the change closes a potential path for local entities to act without executive oversight; opponents and some questioners focused on how consultation with the attorney general would work and whether established federal–state partnerships at the border would be affected.

Key points from testimony

- Jake Pershing Johnson, Legal Counsel to Governor Scott, told the committee he had worked on the 2017 version of the law and does not object to the Senate version. "We believe that this decision authority rests most appropriately with the governor," Johnson said, adding that the consultation requirement with the attorney general does not cede final authority: "We may disagree and the governor makes that decision as the chief executive officer of the state."

- Christopher Raquel, Executive Director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, described the Council’s fair and impartial policing policy and said it affirms Vermont law enforcement "has no authority to enforce civil immigration law," while permitting limited assistance on federal criminal matters. He said the Council and law enforcement have not identified any current 287(g) or 1401 agreements in Vermont.

- Todd Delos, Assistant Attorney General and Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs, said the Attorney General’s Office supports the Senate-passed version and noted the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task-force arrangements (which involve federal partners) predate the 2017 law and would need careful review to avoid disrupting that work.

Committee discussion and clarifications

Committee members asked how the consultation with the attorney general is defined; Legislative Counsel and the governor’s counsel said the statute requires consultation but does not prescribe a formal written approval process. Johnson described consultation as practical, sometimes involving the governor’s counsel and the Attorney General’s Office; he said the governor would consider the AG’s views but retains final decision authority.

Witnesses described the federal website and a publicly maintained spreadsheet that lists agreements nationwide and said different models exist (jail enforcement, task force, warrant service). Sagle noted the ICE map and spreadsheet show how other states use partial or county-level agreements and that the 1401 customs-designation authority appears to be used far less frequently.

Actions and procedural notes

- The committee reviewed S.44 as passed by the Senate. Witnesses and staff confirmed the bill would take effect on passage.

- Committee members reported a Senate floor voice vote had recorded a 4-1-0 tally when the Senate passed the measure earlier; no committee-level vote was taken during this hearing.

Context and limitations

Witnesses repeatedly said they are not aware of any agreements currently in force in Vermont under 8 U.S.C. §1357(g) or 19 U.S.C. §1401 that would be affected by S.44. The committee was also reminded that some federal–state law-enforcement cooperation (for example, on border incidents and longstanding task-force work such as ICAC) is separate from the deputization covered by 287(g) or customs-designation agreements and may be operationally important to border communities.

Ending: The committee did not take a formal vote at this hearing; staff and witnesses said they would supply follow-up details if the committee requests further clarification about the statute’s prospective effect on any existing or in-process agreements. The next agenda item followed after the S.44 testimony concluded.