Senate committee reviews S.44 amendment to require governor approval for immigration-related agreements

The Senate Judiciary Committee on March 11 discussed proposed committee amendments to S.44 that would bar state, county or municipal entities from entering into agreements with federal immigration-enforcement agencies unless the governor authorizes them.

Under current law cited in the committee discussion (Title 20, section 46 52), the governor, after consulting with the Vermont attorney general, is authorized to enter into certain agreements referenced in the transcript as “8 USC 13 57” and “287(g) agreements.” The draft committee amendment (draft 1.1) would strike a subsection that the committee described as allowing a state, county or municipal law-enforcement agency to enter into such agreements "when necessary to address threats to the public safety or welfare" during a declaration of a state or national emergency. In its place, the amendment would clarify that no state, county or municipal law-enforcement agency or officer may enter into those agreements unless the governor authorizes them.

Committee members raised questions about whether the change should be written to include other state agencies beyond law enforcement. One member asked whether agencies such as the Department for Children and Families (DCF) or the Department of Corrections (DOC) would be covered; committee staff said subsection language currently focuses on law enforcement and that the drafters were considering whether to broaden the language so "no entity shall enter into those agreements unless they are authorized by the governor." Committee members asked staff to check consistency with other statutes before finalizing any broader wording.

Representatives of civil liberties and the Attorney General's Office spoke during the discussion. Paul Coachelli and Adam Seifter of the ACLU of Vermont said they support the committee's changes and urged the committee to move the bill forward. Coachelli/Seifter said the ACLU is concerned that language allowing agreements during a federal or state declaration of emergency could be read to permit local participation without gubernatorial approval, and proposed adding limits on information sharing. They recommended specific categories of information that should receive protection, citing legally protected health-care activities such as abortion and gender-affirming care, and raised concern about state assistance in investigations that target protected speech or lawful protest activity.

Todd Deos of the Attorney General's Office told the committee, "we support the change," and said the office is willing to work with the ACLU on draft language. Deos also recommended ensuring any new protections align with the state's existing information-shield statute referenced in the transcript as "12 DSA 73 0 6."

Committee staff said they will review statutory language for consistency across statutes and return with revised drafting. The committee paused the item to allow the executive council and staff time to finish related work and agreed to reconvene later the same morning to continue S.44 and to consider a vote once the revised language is available. No formal motion or committee vote on S.44 occurred during this session.

The discussion combined statutory drafting details, legal-policy concerns about information sharing, and requests for clearer, broader language to avoid perceived loopholes if only law enforcement is named. Committee members asked staff for follow-up drafting and statutory-conformity checks before the committee votes.