Washington ? The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether to force states to evaluate cases individually before listing former sex offenders on registries meant to help people keep tabs on offenders living or working nearby.

The court’s ruling on “Megan’s laws” in more than 20 states could mean separate hearings to determine the risk posed by a sex criminal who has completed a prison sentence.

Each state has some form of sex offender registry named for the New Jersey child kidnapped, raped and killed in 1994 by a convicted sex offender who lived across the street. Her parents knew nothing of his history.

The Bush administration sided with Connecticut, as did each of the other states with similar laws, in asking the Supreme Court to restore or preserve public access to information about former sex offenders.

“Megan’s laws serve vital government interests by assisting law enforcement and enabling American communities to better protect themselves, and in particular their children,” the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer wrote in court papers.

Connecticut set up an Internet list that grouped all convicted sex criminals together, based solely on their court records.

Lawyers for two anonymous former Connecticut sex offenders argued that the system violates the Constitution’s guarantee that government will not take away “life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

“It’s important to remember that this case is not about preventing sex offender registries from existing,” said Shelley Sadin, a lawyer representing the men. They also are being defended by the Connecticut chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It is about making sure that sex offender laws are fair and constitutional … that they do not post the current photos of people who are not dangerous alongside people who are dangerous … without a hearing about whether or not they belong on that list,” Sadin said.

A federal judge struck down Connecticut’s sex offender registry last year, finding that it violated the constitutional rights of past offenders to place their names on the list without a chance to prove they are no longer dangerous to society.

The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and the registry is no longer publicly available.

Federal law requires states to have a registry, or face a cut in federal funding.