Case: Doe v. Wilson
3:21-cv-04108 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
Filed Date: Dec. 22, 2021
Closed Date: April 22, 2022
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case about South Carolina's inclusion of people with pre-Lawrence v. Texas convictions for consensual gay sex on the state's sex offender registry. Lawrence v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case that held most sanctions of criminal punishment for consensual, adult, non-procreative sexual activity are unconstitutional. On December 22, 2021, a man who was convicted of South Carolina’s criminal sodomy statute in 2001 and remained on the sex offender registry, filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District Of South Carolina Columbia Division. The plaintiff sued South Carolina and the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Represented by the ACLU and private counsel, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees. In addition, the plaintiff sought injunctive relief stopping the defendants from enforcing the criminal sodomy statute, removing the plaintiff from the sex offender registry, expunging records indicating the plaintiff was on the registry, and alerting agencies who were provided information about the plaintiff’s registration he is no longer on the registry. The plaintiff also sought injunctive relief ordering the defendants to cease placing individuals convicted under the criminal sodomy statute or a similar offense in another jurisdiction on the registry and informing all relevant agencies that such convictions are no longer registrable offenses. The case was assigned to District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis.
The plaintiff was indicted for consensual sex with another man in 2001. In 2006 he received a pardon, but is still required to register as a sex offender. Failure to comply can result in fines and imprisonment. Registered individuals must report in person twice a year for life. They must include immense biographical information as well as all employment, education, vehicle information, and online accounts. Any change in residence, real property ownership, employment, or enrollment in an educational facility must be reported to the county sheriff. Schools must provide registry information to parents. Individuals on the registry are more likely to lose a job, housing, and suffer harassment and assault.
The complaint alleged a violation of the plaintiff's Due Process as the statute was unconstitutional after Lawrence v. Texas, and violates the Equal Protection Clause by treating homosexual intimacy as different than heterosexual without promoting a state interest. The statue was also vague as to which acts are prohibited.
On April 12 the parties filed a joint motion for permanent injunction and on August 22, 2022, Judge Lewis granted the parties’ joint stipulation. The defendants agreed to remove all individuals on the registry merely for breaking the criminal sodomy statute and no individuals who have a similar conviction in a different jurisdiction would be added. The defendants would inform all removed individuals that they no longer need to register and inform the county sheriff’s offices that those individuals are no longer subject to the requirements of the registry. The defendants paid $31,592.30 in plaintiff’s fees, costs, and expenses.
The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Zoe Van Dyke (11/27/2022)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61640574/parties/doe-v-wilson/
Lewis, Mary Geiger (South Carolina)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61640574/doe-v-wilson/
Last updated April 15, 2026, 5:14 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 22, 2021
Closing Date: April 22, 2022
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A man who was convicted of South Carolina’s criminal sodomy statute in 2001 and remained on the sex offender registry
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
South Carolina
South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of South Carolina 3:21-cv-04108
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $31,592.30
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Basis:
LGBTQ+:
Case Summary of Doe v. Wilson, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/43871/ (last updated 11/27/2022).