Senate Judiciary hears DOC on U.S. Marshals, ICE contracts as committee debates emergency clause

The Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 19 heard from Nate Dunlop, commissioner of corrections for the State of Vermont, about the department’s intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. Marshals Service and the small number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees held in state facilities.

Dunlop told the committee the state’s agreement “allows us to house up to 80 individuals” for the Marshals Service and that the arrangement keeps defendants near the U.S. District Court in Vermont, reducing transport burdens on federal resources. He urged the committee to take testimony from federal partners, including the U.S. district court and the Marshals Service, before adopting legislation that would constrain executive authority over such agreements.

Why it matters: the Marshals arrangement affects where federal defendants awaiting trial are held, the operational capacity of the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) and the day‑to‑day functioning of federal criminal proceedings in Vermont. Committee members debated whether to remove a provision in the draft bill that would allow local law enforcement agencies to enter agreements with federal authorities during a declared national emergency without gubernatorial approval.

Dunlop said the DOC’s current Marshals contract usually runs below its 80‑person cap and that the state’s role is a capacity backstop for the federal system. “The federal government has very limited options in New England to house criminal defendants while they’re away on a trial,” he said, and Vermont’s proximity to the federal courthouse reduces repeated long‑distance transports. He added the per‑diem the Marshals pay is set by the federal government and that Vermont has pushed to raise that rate: “I think we have the highest per diem rate in the country, for any federal detention arrangement.”

On ICE detainees, Dunlop said numbers are small and typically short‑term. “For example, today, we have four ICE detainees in our system,” he said, adding that most transfers are measured in hours or up to 72 hours before federal administrative processing. He told senators the DOC provides medical attention and consistent food and care for detainees during that custody period and said he could not guarantee the same services would be available if detainees were held elsewhere.

Committee members raised questions about data sharing, state capacity and the potential consequences if federal enforcement at the northern border increased. Senator Wilson (by name in transcript) asked whether the DOC or state systems proactively share detainee data with ICE; Dunlop replied, “We don’t have any data sharing agreement. We don’t provide any information to the federal government that isn’t in exchange.” He said much criminal justice information is housed in federal or shared systems (CJIS and the state’s Odyssey court system) and noted the DOC itself does not proactively push its offender‑management data to federal immigration authorities.

Senators also debated language in the draft bill that would carve out an exception during a national emergency, allowing local law enforcement entities to enter agreements without the governor’s approval. Some senators, citing concerns about federal overreach and the emergence of politically motivated emergency declarations, urged keeping gubernatorial oversight; others argued removing the clause would consolidate state control and avoid empowering individual sheriffs or small agencies to act independently. Senator Hochul (as identified in the transcript) said she was “unconvinced that there is a state of emergency that requires such rapid action related to immigration that we can't have checks and balances.”

No formal committee vote was recorded during the hearing. Members asked staff to seek additional testimony from federal partners and the attorney general’s office and discussed language suggested by the ACLU to narrow or eliminate the emergency carve‑out. The chair indicated the committee would follow up after the attorney general and other parties have reviewed the bill text.

Discussion versus action: committee members debated amendments and policy direction but took no formal action or recorded vote during this session. Testimony and several lines of questioning focused on operational capacity, statutory authority and data‑sharing practices rather than on immediate adoption of legislation.

What’s next: senators requested additional briefings, including from the U.S. district court and federal law enforcement, and said they would let the attorney general and other stakeholders review the proposed bill language before scheduling further committee action.