Assistant Attorney General urges broad student-privacy protections in House Education hearing on S.227
Loading...
Summary
Assistant Attorney General Julio Thompson told the House Education Committee on April 7 that S.227’s privacy provisions largely fit within Second Circuit precedent and recommended drafting changes to avoid conflicts with federal statutes cited in the bill (referred to in the transcript as 13 73 and 16 44). He urged broad third‑party nondisclosure protections and clearer coverage of school districts and the Agency of Education.
Julio Thompson, assistant attorney general and co-director of the civil rights unit, testified to the House Education Committee on April 7 that S.227’s aims to limit law-enforcement access to people in school buildings are consistent with established state privacy policy and court precedents in the Second Circuit.
Thompson said the Constitution and federal law make immigration enforcement a federal function and state and local officials are not required to assist federal immigration enforcement absent lawful process. “You cannot commandeer or enlist state and local officials to carry out federal functions,” he told committee members, urging the panel to frame S.227 as a state privacy protection rather than a measure intended to thwart federal enforcement.
Thompson reviewed two federal statutes cited in the bill (referred to in the hearing as 13 73 and 16 44), explaining those laws target restrictions on voluntary communications with federal immigration authorities rather than general privacy rules. He described the Second Circuit’s City of New York litigation, which the circuit suggested would accept a broad, general privacy policy that protects immigration status along with other personal information.
On drafting, Thompson recommended the committee mirror language the legislature has used in prior Vermont statutes that include a savings clause for federal lawful requirements, and he urged the bill to expressly sweep in school districts and the Agency of Education rather than only “schools.” He said that approach would reduce ambiguity over which government actors must comply and would make it easier to certify compliance for federal grants.
Thompson also argued the bill should maintain a broad prohibition on third‑party disclosures — not narrow it only to disclosures to federal immigration officers — because third‑party nondisclosure better aligns with the Second Circuit’s safe‑harbor reasoning and reduces risks of discrimination or harassment. “If you tell the newspaper, an employer or a neighbor, that can have the same chilling or harmful effects,” he said.
The attorney general’s office offered several drafting suggestions intended to fortify the statute against legal challenge, and legislative counsel said they would follow up with Thompson’s office. The committee did not take a vote; members asked legislative counsel and AOE counsel to incorporate the AG’s clarifications into future drafts.
