Green v. Dorchester County Sheriff Office, 2:21-cv-01304

Jonathan Green was adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile in Virginia in 1998 and was not required by that state to register as a sex offender; he later moved to South Carolina, where he was informed he must register under South Carolina law.
Green was placed on the South Carolina sex offender registry, and remained listed for over 20 years, despite later attempts by his father and himself to remove him, based on Virginia's rules and affidavits.
Green and his company, JGCRE, Inc., sued South Carolina authorities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations and seeking removal from the registry, as well as damages and other relief.
Procedural history includes multiple amended complaints, motions to dismiss, and the eventual survival of a single § 1983 claim seeking injunctive relief against SLED Chief Keel to remove Green from the registry.
In May 2023, after a change in South Carolina law following Powell v. Keel, Green successfully applied to be removed from the registry and is no longer listed as a sex offender in South Carolina.
Despite removal, plaintiffs argued harm continues because SLED retains records about Green and expresses concern about future disclosure or misuse of this information.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief for continued retention/dissemination of Green’s registry-related records after removal	Green faces ongoing harm due to retained records and risk of future disclosure; fears status as a former registrant will be exposed	No continued harm; SLED’s practices protect data, and removal eliminates any basis for injunctive relief	No ongoing irreparable harm present; summary judgment for defendant
Whether fear of future accidental or policy-based disclosure warrants relief	Registry info could accidentally be released again, or policies could change, exposing Green	Prior disclosures were isolated incidents; robust safeguards and legal penalties protect against improper disclosure	Court found no likelihood of imminent or recurrent harm; fear too speculative
Whether registration was unlawful and warrants relief	Green allegedly should not have been placed on registry in SC, since VA court did not require it	No evidence presented that SC registration was unlawful; factual basis never established in litigation	Issue moot as no finding made, and Green already removed from registry
Whether permanent injunction is available as a remedy	Ongoing reputational/business damages and risk justify continued court supervision	No showing of imminent recurrence; only remedy available was injunctive, prerequisites not met	Permanent injunction denied; case dismissed

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (sets summary judgment standard for material facts in federal court)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (irreparable injury requires a real and immediate threat of future harm for injunction)
United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (injunctive relief requires cognizable danger of recurrent violation)
Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 422 U.S. 49 (1975) (necessity of showing present, imminent threat for permanent injunctive relief)
O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (past injury is evidence for likelihood of future injury, but forward-looking relief requires future threat)
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010) (four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four-part test for injunctive remedies in federal court)