Courts have generally upheld sex offender registration requirements for sex offenders whose supervision transfers under an interstate Compact so long as such registration requirements are not discriminatory. Thus, a receiving state may impose sex offender registration requirements on transferees so long as the requirements are the same as imposed on in-state sex offenders.

In Doe v. McVey, 381 F. Supp. 2d 443, 451 (E.D. Penn. 2005) aff’d sub nom. Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 513 F. 3d 95 (3d Cir. 2008), the court struck down the application of Pennsylvania’s “Megan’s Law” to an out-of-state sex offender. The court determined that under the law as applied, an in-state sex offender was entitled to a civil hearing to determine whether they were a “sexually violent predator” before required registration. An out-of-state sex offender seeking transfer of supervision was subject to the requirement of automatic registration without the corresponding hearing available to an in-state sex offender. The court found that, although protecting citizens from sex offenses was a legitimate state interest, subjecting one group of sex offenders to community notification without the same procedural safeguards accorded to other sex offenders, based solely on where the predicate offense was committed, was not rationally related to consistent protection from sex offenses. Thus, according to the court, Pennsylvania's Megan's Law violated the Equal Protection Clause.