By Guy Page

Across Vermont and especially in the State House, there’s probably no more divisive issue than the role of ICE. Yesterday, the Town of Williston selectboard passed a resolution opposing ICE. About 100 St. Johnsbury Academy students left classes to protest ICE as part of a nationwide demonstration. In Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Pro Tem admitted he’s probably “being a little paranoid” about how the feds might use drug enforcement as a pretext for detaining immigrants. 

But add one little word to ICE – “cream” – and the vibe changes. At a Capitol Ministries mixer Tuesday afternoon, elected officials as disparate in their views as Progressive Rep. Brian Cina of Burlington and Republican Rep. Mary Morrissey of Bennington could be seen sitting down peacefully over the ice cream served up by the State House ministry overseen by Rev. Aaron Clark of Montpelier. His scoopers included Rev. Joshua Morse of South Royalton and volunteer Nick MacLaren.

The appeal of ice cream was obviously universal – a left-leaning environmentalist House committee chairman lining up for her mint chocolate chip, a pro-business lobbyist and her son just ahead of her. 

But back on the subject of just ICE…..

The Senate Judiciary Committee met in the morning on January 20th to review S.208, proposed anti-masking legislation for state and federal law enforcement. The bill is similar to measures adopted in California which went into effect on January 1 of this year. 

The committee received an update from Legislative Counsel on developments in California and New York, including the status of an injunction on the California law and potential Supremacy Clause concerns. Members discussed the scope of exceptions carved for specific circumstances in law enforcement, particularly for undercover drug operations, debating whether to tighten the language to avoid broad federal claims. 

Senator Phil Baruth (D-Chittenden Central) expressed worry that the Federal government will declare ongoing drug related operations as a pretext for continuing the practice of masking their agents. He references other alleged instances where the Federal Government has used this tactic. 

“I fully confess to being a little paranoid about the way the federal government may respond. I think in general, they have tended to take any challenge to their authority and respond in ways that are often completely disingenuous. For instance, declaring a fentanyl related emergency as a pretext to send officers into random blue cities around the country.” Sen Nadar Hashim (D-Windham) proposed tying the language to the VT Drug Taskforce to avoid federal claims. The committee discussed enforcement mechanisms and penalties, including whether violations should be civil or criminal and how they might implicate misconduct proceedings with an effect on the professional licenses of officers. Regarding enforcement, the committee clarified that the law, if enacted, would be enforced by local or state law enforcement officers themselves, requiring VT law enforcement to issue citations or potentially arrest federal agents. Discussion also occurred on officer identification requirements, refining the scope of when identification is required and aligning state language with federal safety standards. The committee also reviewed proposed cold-weather and medical mask exceptions. Finally, members considered whether to include limited legislative findings and intent language to support constitutional framing before outlining next steps and adjourning.