In the case of teacher versus former student, the teacher won. So did the state of Kansas.

A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that Kansas prisons can limit privileges of sex offenders who won’t admit to crimes as part of therapy.

Steve McAllister, dean of the Kansas University School of Law and state solicitor, argued the case, McKune v. Lile, for the state. His former student, 1997 KU law graduate Matt Wiltanger, argued for Robert Lile, the prisoner in the case.

“It’s a good, solid victory for the state,” McAllister said. “It looks to me like we don’t have to change a thing. We’re fine as is.”

Lile, a convicted rapist, argued the state violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in 1994 when it decided to punish him for refusing to sign paperwork admitting guilt in the crime for which he was convicted and refusing to fill out a form that listed his sexual history, including names of any other victims.

Among the privileges that now may be taken from Lile are rights to visitors, personal television and work and recreation.

The court split 5-4 on the decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, said “offering inmates minimal incentives to participate (in rehabilitation) does not amount to compelled incrimination. Sex offenders are a serious threat in this nation.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that Kansas was actually punishing inmates for not admitting crimes.

“This is truly a watershed case,” he said.

Both McAllister and Wiltanger said they expected other states to move forward with similar treatment now that Kansas’ program has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I think that’s the real impact of it,” Wiltanger said. “It will allow several states, whether it’s a sex offender program or others, to treat inmates. You could set up a program like this to treat murderers. You could set up a program like this to treat robbers.

“If you do it all in the name of therapy and if the penalties you extract aren’t liberty interests or aren’t severe, this allows the state if it wants to find out every bit of information it wants about an inmate. It could give the states tremendous leeway.”

McAllister argued no one has been prosecuted with information divulged to counselors. But Kansas, unlike some other states with similar programs, does not give prisoners immunity for information they share.

The case, argued in November, was McAllister’s fifth before the Supreme Court. Wiltanger was a Supreme Court rookie.

Wiltanger said the two remained good-natured foes during the seven-month wait for a decision. He called McAllister, who is vacationing this week in Galveston, Tex., Monday morning to tell him the decision.

The decision came about five months after a defeat for Kansas and its aggressive sex predator laws. The court restricted state efforts to confine sex offenders after their prison terms expire. Justices, in a 7-2 vote, said states must prove convicted sex offenders have serious problems controlling themselves before the civil commitments.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.