October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1231
Does Connecticut's Megan's Law list violate a convicted offender's privacy rights?
Connecticut officials want to keep sex offender data public. The offender argues this practice harms his reputation and privacy.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Richard Blumenthal argued for the state. He stated Connecticut seeks access to truthful public records. He emphasized the importance of public safety information.
Ms. Sadin argued for the offender. She claimed the public views listed individuals as serious threats. She highlighted the specific danger to children.
Chief Justice Rehnquist questioned the advocate's factual claim. He asked if the public truly perceives every listed person as a threat.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 45-49
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the balance between public safety and individual privacy. Connecticut maintains a public list of convicted sex offenders. The state claims this protects the community. The offender argues the list causes lasting harm.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 13, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
Connecticut wants to keep the offender's name and details on the public list.
The offender wants the Court to remove his information from the public list.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
What each side says
Connecticut argues the public has a right to access truthful records about convicted sex offenders.
The offender argues the list poses a serious threat to his personal safety and reputation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the public truly views every listed person as a serious threat.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 45-49
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of public access to criminal records. It determines how states balance community safety against individual privacy rights. The outcome shapes how Megan's Law operates nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 45-49
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-3
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.