Senate Judiciary considers bill requiring legislative approval for ICE deputization agreements

The Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 11 took up S.44, a bill that would require the General Assembly to approve any agreement authorizing state or local officers to perform federal immigration enforcement under 8 U.S.C. §1357(g) (commonly called "287(g)") or related customs-designation authorities under 19 U.S.C. §1401. Senator White introduced the measure, and the committee heard legal and community testimony before adjourning for further consideration.

Senator White said she brought the bill after constituents expressed fear that state resources could be used to support broad federal deportation efforts. "We have an obligation to question when state resources should be deployed," Senator White said, arguing the legislation would add a legislative check to agreements the governor presently may approve in consultation with the attorney general.

The bill would change current Vermont law (Act 5 of 2017, added to Title 20) by replacing the existing "in consultation with the attorney general" language with a requirement that the General Assembly approve any such agreement. The draft also strikes the existing exception that permits agreements to be entered during a state or national emergency. Drafters would require the governor to provide the full proposed agreement and an analysis of fiscal, social and legal impacts at least 60 days before the General Assembly may vote and to hold public hearings to solicit input.

Ruth Sable of the Office of Legislative Council explained the bill's relation to current law and federal authorities, noting that many states have 287(g) or similar arrangements and that Vermont has not historically entered into such agreements. Committee members pressed staff about the bill's operative mechanics, including whether "approval" would require an up-or-down vote, whether the "may vote" language should be "shall vote," and how the 60-day notice would work if the governor called a special session. Members also raised whether the bill's language should expressly cover state employees beyond municipal or county law enforcement and whether the National Guard or emergency proclamations would remain outside the bill's reach.

Witnesses described how federal-local cooperation works in practice and the local effects of increased immigration enforcement. Jill Martin Diaz, an attorney appearing for the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project, described recent client experiences and the state's use of intergovernmental service agreements (IGSAs) to house federal detainees. "The department has 72 hours to either decide to release the person on their own recognizance, meaning release them into the community," she said, describing how fingerprint data can lead to ICE custody and how out‑of‑state transfers and detention strain local legal resources.

Committee members also discussed constitutional and separation-of-powers concerns, asking whether additional legislative approval could run afoul of federal law or encroach on executive authority. Legislative counsel said the state can impose its own conditions on how it cooperates with federal immigration agreements, but counsel also offered to research case law and preemption issues further.

No formal vote was taken on S.44 during the hearing. Committee members signaled interest in refining draft language—particularly the emergency exception, the 60-day notice and whether approval should be mandatory—before returning to the issue.

The committee recessed for further review and additional testimony; staff said they would return with research on constitutional questions and examples from other states.