As Corrections Sentencing notes, if a split develops, the Supreme Court may have to get involved. However, I'm not sure if any of the state courts will be willing to strike down the state laws (outside of Ex Post Facto problems which could limit implementation to present and future offenders). In California, this is what is happening:
The state Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from revoking the parole of four recently released sex offenders who are illegally living too close to schools and parks.
In a one-paragraph order, the court said it will consider whether Jessica's Law violates the parolees' constitutional rights. The law approved by voters last November prohibits offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather.
The parolees' attorneys said the temporary injunction should apply to all the nearly 1,800 recent parolees who had been told they must move or risk being sent back to prison starting Thursday.
The state still plans to immediately start revoking parole for violators unless it is blocked by another court order, said Bill Maile, a spokesman for the department and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“We intend to move forward on implementation with all other offenders subject to the law,” said Maile.
And in Ohio:
Forcing a registered sex offender to leave a home that he bought before a residence-restriction law went into effect in 2003 violates his constitutional property rights, a lawyer for an offender told the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday.
"We have no quarrel with the government applying this statute prospectively," said David A. Singleton, executive director of the Cincinnati-based Ohio Justice and Policy Center. But, "If that person has established a homeowner interest, that right cannot be taken away. That is bedrock law in this state because property rights are so important."
Attorneys for the state attorney general and the Hamilton County prosecutor defended the state law as constitutional.
They said the law, which forbids sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, is a child-protection law that state legislators intended to apply to all registered sex offenders. It also is a remedial law and not punitive, so it does not violate constitutional property rights, they said.
"It is remedial," said Stephen P. Carney, an assistant attorney general. "The purpose is not to punish him but to protect the children nearby."
The Ohio challenge is wholly limited to Ex Post Facto claims of removing people from their homes so even if the Supreme Court is inclined to strike down that portion of the law, the overall residency restrictions system will be maintained.