I would think so if the right to be forgotten was legal principle in the United States. It only applies in Europe and I don’t think it applies to court records that are public.
They're not searchable, they're often not even digitized, and the media is generally not allowed to report the full names of those accused.
Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody. If a background check is required, the person of interest has to specifically request an official document from the government proving they haven't been convicted for any crimes, or listing the crimes they have been convicted for. This is pretty common when starting a new job, I have had to do this.
Now there's also a sex offenders registry, which authorized institutions can query directly, although they have to get consent first.
I have a hard time imagine that law enforcement doesn't have access to it. At that point access is given by degree of difficulty and not "impossible". I could buy "illegal" tho.
Here in the us I know how insubstantial this claim is. If you know enough law enforcement $10 can get you pictures of a full lookup. And this is with a fairly bare relationship.
So maybe it's not impossible, but it's not something you would do as part of normal HR screening.
In the Netherlands it's not even that -- you can ask for a certificate of "good behavior" with a purpose and they just say yes or no. If the purpose is employment, the form asks which sector you will be employed in, because sex offenders can still work somewhere and so do people convicted of financial fraud. You just don't want them to work in specific places, i.e. near kids or banks respectively.
Data minimization is a thing.
Tangentially, IMO any 1984 comparisons fall flat when the state is not involved in the censorship in question.
“ Here are the reasons cited in the GDPR that trump the right to erasure:
The data is being used to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information.[…]”