Sen. Nader Hashim, D-Windham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at the Statehouse in Montpelier on April 16, 2025. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger Can Vermont lawmakers restrict how federal immigration authorities operate in the state? Democrats are poised to try this session, mulling legislation that would limit where civil immigration arrests can occur and would prohibit law enforcement officers from wearing masks in most cases.  Vermonters should be able to visit sensitive locations “without fear of being snatched,” Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, P/D-Chittenden Central, a sponsor of two bills addressing immigration agents’ actions, told her colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  READ MORE The bills were introduced in the Senate this week. S.209 would prevent civil arrests at schools, government buildings, health care facilities and what the bill calls community-based shelters, severe weather shelters and emergency housing. Meanwhile, S.208, largely restricts when law enforcement officers can wear masks and requires officers to identify themselves verbally or by badge.  Federal courts have met similar policies elsewhere in the country with mixed reactions, and President Donald Trump’s administration continues to challenge states’ attempts to regulate U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, such as in California, where lawmakers have sought to generally ban federal agents from wearing masks.   Both pieces of legislation in Vermont cite the 10th Amendment, which gives states powers not specifically granted to the federal government.  But legislative attorneys cautioned Vermont’s Senate Judiciary Committee that the potential legality of restricting ICE in Vermont would depend on a tangled web of federal laws, case law and active court cases.  Rik Sehgal, a lawyer for the Legislature, told lawmakers Wednesday that federal courts have for the most part found that limited arrests by immigration authorities at courthouses is “approved by the 10th Amendment.” Whether states can restrict immigration arrests in more locations is “a little bit gray,” he said. And regarding the federal laws potentially restricting Vermont’s ability to limit federal agents from wearing masks, Sophie Zdatny, a lawyer for the Legislature, told lawmakers that “the Supreme Court has really not addressed this particular immunity for over a century.” There’s no federal law, policy or rule that explicitly authorizes masking for law enforcement, Zsatny said, though U.S. Department of Homeland Security leaders have said officers have discretion to wear masks.  Both bills have strong support from Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden Central, who sits on the judiciary committee. In an interview Thursday, he pointed to the increasing presence of ICE in Minneapolis, where an immigration agent shot and killed a woman Wednesday, as a reason why the bills are necessary.   “We have to be proactive about that, because I will bet you every cent I have that within the year, Burlington and Winooski will see raids,” Baruth said, adding that he was comfortable supporting bills the Trump administration might challenge in court. “We’re kind of fighting with our backs to the wall as states.” In Vermont, federal immigration agents have conducted arrests wearing masks. Mohsen Mahdawi, a Vermonter and Palestinian activist, was detained by masked officers in Colchester following an interview regarding his citizenship.  In 2022, Vermont lawmakers restricted immigration arrests in and around courthouses, a protection other states have attempted to enshrine as well. In other states, ICE has made a practice of arresting immigrants in and around courthouses. Last November, a federal judge upheld a New York law preventing immigration arrests at state courts.   Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said he intended to take up the Senate’s ICE bills should they reach his committee later this year.  Read the story on VTDigger here: Signaling or substance? Vermont lawmakers propose restrictions on ICE, but their enforcement is questionable. . ...read more read less