Every state has a Megan’s Law. Named in memory of a 7-year-old New Jersey girl raped and killed in 1994 by a neighbor no one in the community knew was a convicted sex offender, these laws spring from both public outrage and a 1997 congressional mandate. At minimum, Megan’s Laws require convicted offenders, upon release from prison, to keep police informed of their whereabouts and for states to keep a public registry of these offenders.

Beyond that, the laws vary widely in the extent to which these offenders must check in with police and the steps police may take to notify the community of their presence. Challenges to these state laws have been percolating up through state and federal courts almost from the start and now two have made it the U.S. Supreme Court. Alaska’s and Connecticut’s Megan’s Laws are on trial and the outcomes will have implications elsewhere, including Maine.

In arguments heard last week, it was clear that none of the justices questioned the guiding principle behind these laws – sex offenders, especially serial offenders who prey upon children, are a different and especially devious breed of criminal who require some degree of monitoring after release from prison. The legality of authorities making a sex offender registry available to public is not in doubt; information on all criminal convictions is a matter of the public record.

What appeared to trouble several of the justices, and what could spell trouble for many of these laws across the country, is what Justice Anthony M. Kennedy called the “very, very burdensome” affirmative step of requiring Alaska’s sex offenders to check in with police every four months. If that is found by the majority to be not only burdensome but also unconstitutional, there is little chance that Maine law, which requires an annual $25 registration fee from all offenders and 90-day check-ins by those considered to be “sexually violent predators,” could withstand challenge.

Offender registries that merely make public information available to the public are not under attack, but the justices clearly were concerned about whether authorities in Alaska and Connecticut use that information, posted on the Internet, to publicly shame one particular group of criminals after they’ve served their sentences and whether that is unconstitutional ex post facto punishment. The Connecticut registry also is being challenged for not informing the public which of the offenders successfully completed treatment while incarcerated and which did not. A negative ruling on those points would not bode well for Maine, which has an Internet registry lacking information on treatment and which allows police to go door-to-door at local discretion with notices about specific offenders.

Maine’s decade-old registry law was updated in 1999 to comply with Congress’ Megan mandate; it now encompasses a wide range of sex crimes, it includes more than 3,000 names and it has withstood several challenges in lower courts. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the Alaska and Connecticut cases in July. Knowing in advance what aspects of Megan’s Laws most concern the court gives Maine lawmakers an opportunity to make necessary adjustments so that the public is protected along with the rights of the offenders.