Judiciary committee hears legal review of S209, the 'sensitive locations' civil‑arrest bill

On April 9, the Judiciary committee reviewed S209, a proposed law that would prohibit civil arrests at defined "sensitive locations" — including courthouses, schools, health facilities and places of worship — and in some instances while people are traveling to or from those sites.

Assistant Attorney General Julio Thompson told the panel his office sees "good reason to believe in existing law that states do have the authority to regulate locations relating to civil arrests without violating the US supremacy clause." He said the clearest legal footing is for places the state owns or operates, because a government as proprietor can lawfully regulate conditions on its property.

But Thompson cautioned that some phrases in S209 — particularly the lines about being "subject to civil arrest while traveling to, entering, remaining at, or returning from" protected places — raise questions that courts are likely to decide on a case‑by‑case basis. "It seems unlikely that a court would find that Vermont's state law extends beyond its state's borders," he said, noting extraterritorial effect would be an unlikely statutory interpretation.

Committee members pressed Thompson on practical hypotheticals: whether a roadside immigration stop en route to a courthouse, or a checkpoint near a school, would be covered. Thompson said such situations would likely turn on individual facts and proving that an arrest was made "knowingly and willingly" in contravention of the statute could be part of future litigation.

The committee next heard from Beth St. James, who explained how S209 defines "educational institution." St. James said the Senate‑passed draft incorporates multiple Title 16 definitions and explicitly sweeps in public schools, approved independent schools, regional career and technical centers, approved programs such as teen‑parenting programs, pre‑qualified private pre‑K providers, postsecondary institutions, cooperative education service programs (formerly BOCES), tutorial and adult education programs, and the grounds and programs related to those institutions.

Committee members raised several clarifying points: whether pre‑qualified private pre‑K providers include in‑home providers (St. James said the pre‑qualification rules can sweep in private providers and that the Department for Children and Families maintains a list) and whether the bill should include state buildings, libraries, DMVs or grocery distribution sites. Several members signaled they want the traveling language narrowed or limited to specific site types such as courts and hospitals.

The chair asked staff to work with committee counsel and with the Department of Public Safety on revised language. The committee did not take a vote on S209; members said they expect additional drafts and more testimony at the next meeting.

The hearing also referenced other legal materials and precedent discussed by witnesses, including the Illinois CASPA statute, a federal district court decision in New York addressing courthouse protections, and relevant federal doctrines such as the Supremacy Clause and intergovernmental‑immunity principles. The committee recessed until its next scheduled session to review proposed drafting changes and gather more testimony.

Next steps: staff will circulate a revised draft focusing on the traveling language and selected definitions; committee members requested follow‑up testimony and written materials from DPS and from agencies maintaining pre‑qualification lists.