S.44 (2025) for VT-DHS Contract oversight

Vermont Bill S.44 (2025): What’s at Stake and Why It Matters

On February 11, VAAP provided testimony before the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee regarding S.44, a bill that raises critical questions about the intersection of state and federal power in immigration enforcement. While the committee engaged deeply, they emerged with lingering questions relating to separation of powers issues arising under the Vermont Constitution. Click here to watch a recording of testimony by Senator Becca White (D-Windsor), Legislative Counsel Rik Sehgal, and VAAP.

What Does S.44 Propose?

The full text of S.44 is available here, but in broad terms, the bill seeks to introduce checks and balances on Vermont agencies’ power to make agreements with federal agencies on immigration matters. This includes ensuring that state and local authorities do not enter into, modify, or terminate such agreements without legislative oversight.

To achieve its purpose, the bill would require General Assembly review for state contract decisions arising under:

• 8 U.S. Code § 1357 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA 287g"), which waives warrant requirements for immigration law enforcement and deputizes local law enforcement for federal immigration enforcement. This is the federal statute under which Vermont Department of Corrections currently contracts bed space out to the U.S. Marshalls through an “Intergovernmental Service Agreement” or “IGSA” for federal purposes, including for ICE detentions.

• 19 U.S. Code § 1401, which does the same with respect to customs enforcement.

• NOTE: S.44 does not abridge 8 U.S. Code § 1373, which prevents government agencies from restricting communication with federal immigration enforcement. This is the federal statute under which Vermont agencies are required to share biometrics data with federal law enforcement databases upon arresting and or incarcerating individuals, which is how an allegedly removable noncitizen might come up on ICE’s “radar” after any criminal legal system contact at the state level, including pre-arraignment and post-dismissal.

The bill would impose a consultation requirement on the executive branch and give the legislative branch 60 days to convene, consider, and if it so chooses, “approve,” contact decisions.

The Committee narrowed in on several legal questions raised by this bill requiring additional research and testimony:

1. Whether intergovernmental contracting is the exclusive function of the executive or if the legislature has the authority to impose oversight on these agreements per the Vermont Constitution;

2. Whether there could ever arise a state-level “immigration emergency” warranting an exception to the 60 day consideration period;

3. What process would the legislature use to convene, consider, and “approve” contracts.

Why It Matters

S.44 impacts public safety and public health for some of the state’s most marginalized communities, as it seeks to disentangle Vermont from federal immigration enforcement. The status quo would undermine implementation of Vermont’s Economic Action Plan 2025 which demonstrates immigrants are necessary to address Vermont’s demographic crisis and the dual unaffordable housing and workforce shortage crises it creates.

Research shows that state entanglement with federal immigration enforcement decreases immigrant communities’ likelihood of seeking emergency protections and interventions when they are needed. When state entanglement with federal immigration enforcement increases, victim and witness reports and cooperation decreases, as does participation rates in public services like education and school. These in turn make victims and witnesses’ downstream involvement in costly emergency health or legal interventions more likely.

While Vermont is known as a “sanctuary state” free from “287g” contracts as they are known in common parlance, Vermont in fact leases Corrections beds to federal agencies on a per diem basis through IGSAs with the U.S. Marshals Service, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

For evidence of Vermont’s entanglements with federal immigration enforcement, see:

• Vermont DOC’s 2011 contract with DHS to hold detained immigrants in custody pending relocation to an out-of-state ICE facility.

• Vermont DOC’s 2016 correspondence on honoring ICE detainer (custody) requests.

For data on the public safety and health harms that states exacerbate when they entangle themselves in federal immigration enforcement, see:

• American Immigration Council (AIC), "The 287(g) Program: An Overview" (2024).

• AIC, “Do 287g Agreements with ICE Make Communities Safer?” (Immigration Impact, 2024).

• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "Stop ICE From Empowering Racist Sheriffs: End 287(g) Agreements" (2024).

• ACLU VT, Lia Ernst speaks to Vermont Public on impossibility of "mass deportations” without federal cooption of local law enforcement resources (Vermont Public, 2024).

• National Immigrant Justice Center, "Policy Brief: Disentangling Local Law Enforcement from Federal Immigration Enforcement" (2024).

• Immigrant Legal Resource Center, "National Map of 287(g) Agreements" (2024).

Vermont has a Fair and Impartial Policing Policy (linked here), which prohibits biased policing and prevents local law enforcement from enforcing immigration law in the line of duty. However, significant entanglement with federal immigration law enforcement still occurs when Vermont permits federal agencies to detain immigrants in Vermont beds for federal immigration enforcement purposes. While 8 U.S. Code § 1373 prohibits Vermont from prohibiting information sharing between Vermont Corrections and federal agencies wholesale, S.44 would at least create accountability and the opportunity to be heard when Vermont is considering contracting into additional entanglements voluntarily.

Researchers and legal scholars agree that federal immigration law enforcement is the business of federal agencies and not Vermont agencies.

S.44 would clarify that the potential for doing business with ICE should be the business of ALL Vermonters.

Case Examples of Impact

The consequences of these agreements are not theoretical; they are having real effects on Vermont residents right now. For example:

• An asylum seeker with no criminal history was recently detained by immigration authorities on the New York side of the lake and held at Vermont’s Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington.

• A pending asylum seeker and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicant with no criminal history was detained by Border Patrol after innocently missing the last highway exit on I-89 and attempting to U-Turn using the available U-Turn lane just before the border crossing into Canada. This person has been separated from his wife and children and is now detained at Northwest State Correctional Facility.

• Numerous immigrant community members and their service providers are reporting withdrawals from education, social, and health programming since the recent uptick in immigration enforcement began in January.

• Numerous community groups are isolating from public life given their awareness that the Fair and Impartial Policing Policy only goes so far toward protecting from Vermont collaboration with ICE.

What’s Next?

The Senate Judiciary Committee is seeking additional input from Vermont towns, sheriffs, and the Department of Corrections to assess the broader implications of S.44. Legislators are also examining other areas where Vermont exercises its "power of the purse" over executive branch decision-making, seeking parallel examples of checks and balances.

As discussions continue, VAAP recommends further testimony from impacted community members, social service providers and researchers, legal scholars, municipal leaders, and advocates with expertise in state-federal agreements. Additionally, clarity is needed on how legislative approval would function in practice—can it be ignored? What happens if the governor vetoes legislative restrictions?

Take Action

Chair Nader Hashim (D-Windham) has identified Vermont’s role in protecting the civil and human rights of its immigrant populations as one of the most talked-about issues in the legislature this session. This moment presents an opportunity to shape policy that reflects our state’s values.

We encourage Vermonters to:

• Follow the bill’s progress on the legislature’s agenda.

• Contact legislators to voice support for robust checks and balances on immigration enforcement agreements.

• Share personal stories about how these policies impact immigrant communities.

S.44 is about more than balance of power issues—it’s about defining Vermont’s role in upholding core concepts of justice and rule of law. VAAP will continue advocating for policies that protect our immigrant communities and ensure transparency.