Committee hears competing views on S.44 limits on state information-sharing with federal authorities

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony Feb. 19 on S.44, a bill that would restrict some Vermont agencies from entering agreements with federal authorities to assist in enforcing federal immigration law and to limit certain kinds of information sharing.

The issue drew testimony from civil‑liberties advocates, the governor's legal counsel, the attorney general's office and the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, who differed on how broadly a statute should limit state cooperation with federal immigration and other investigative efforts.

Advocacy Director, ACLU of Vermont, testified that the ACLU supports the intent of S.44 but offered a package of amendments to broaden protections. The witness said the proposed changes would add categories of protected information — including records about legally protected health care (which the witness identified under Vermont law to include abortion and gender‑affirming care), and information linked to protected First Amendment activity — and would add procedural safeguards for assessing federal requests. "We are not asking anyone to violate any existing laws under this bill. We are trying to ask folks to withhold resources where it is legal and then to an assessment of where there might be statutory constitutional obligations and then respond in kind," the Advocacy Director, ACLU of Vermont, told the committee.

Jay Perkins, the governor's legal counsel, urged caution about the bill's current form. "The micromanagement in this bill undermines the Constitution's purpose of giving this power to the governor in the first place," Perkins said, adding that the governor would likely not sign S.44 as drafted. Perkins said he understood the bill's motivation but warned against creating what he described as a potentially unconstitutional encroachment on executive authority.

Todd Davis of the Attorney General's Office said the office takes a similar position to the governor's counsel and does not see a current need for S.44 as drafted. He told the committee the office is not aware of agreements entered under the existing statute and expressed concern that removing the attorney general and governor from the current approval process would not further law‑enforcement needs. Davis also flagged operational concerns for ongoing partnerships, saying the bill as written could affect the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force and its technical work with federal partners.

Christopher Berkelman, executive director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, said the council recognizes community fear and uncertainty but described the statewide Fair and Impartial Policing policy adopted in 2024 as a strong existing protection. He said most Vermont law enforcement agencies have policies consistent with the statewide standard and that the council's priority is ensuring compliance. "We're not gonna worry about circumstances that have not presented themselves yet," Berkelman said, noting the council's focus is on ensuring community trust and policy adherence.

Committee members asked for more testimony from sheriffs, the Department of Corrections and municipal officials about whether narrow exceptions are needed for exigent circumstances and to explain operational impacts on specific federal‑state collaborations. Several senators said they would seek additional detail about the ACLU's redlines and about how the bill would interact with federal statutes — including testimony about 8 U.S.C. §1373 and the specific customs statutes referenced by law‑enforcement witnesses — before advancing changes.

No formal votes were taken during the hearing. Committee members indicated the discussion will continue and that they expect additional witnesses, including local law enforcement, to testify about operational and constitutional implications before the committee considers amendments or a committee vote.

The committee record shows this discussion builds on Act 5 of 2017, the 2017 law S.44 seeks to amend, and on the statewide Fair and Impartial Policing policy that took effect in 2024. The bill and the ACLU's proposed amendments were the central topics at the Feb. 19 hearing.