State Case Database
Search State Court Report's database of significant state supreme court decisions and pending cases. Download decisions and briefs for cases that develop state constitutional law. This is a selected database and does not include every state supreme court case. See methodology and "How to Use the State Case Database" for more information.
This database is updated monthly, although individual cases may be updated more frequently. Last updated comprehensively with cases decided through March 2025.
Featured Cases
League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature (LWV 1)
Utah Supreme Court sent partisan gerrymandering case back to lower court to consider whether the legislature violated voters' fundamental right to "reform or alter" their government when it overturned redistricting reforms passed by initiative. Lower court found legislators violated that right and struck the current congressional map.
Black Voters Matter v. Byrd
Florida Supreme Court upheld the state's 2022 congressional map against voting rights groups' challenge that it diminishes Black voters' ability to elect candidates of their choice in violation of a 2010 amendment, finding the plaintiffs had not proven the possibility of drawing a remedial map that complies with the federal equal protection clause.
Evers v. Marklein
Wisconsin Supreme Court held that statutes permitting a legislative committee to pause, object to, or suspend administrative rules for varying periods of time both before and after promulgation — used by the committee in this case effectively to block for three years a rule banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ patients — facially violate the state constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements.
Raftery v. State Board of Retirement
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that forfeiture of pension benefits required by state law when a state employee is convicted of violating laws applicable to his office did not violate the excessive fines or “cruel or unusual” punishment clause.
State v. Evans
Washington Supreme Court held that a county's administrative booking process, which involves patting down, handcuffing, and detaining pretrial releasees inside a jail to take their fingerprints and identifying information, violates the state constitution’s protection against intrusions into "private affairs" without authority of law.
League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature (LWV 1)
Utah Supreme Court sent partisan gerrymandering case back to lower court to consider whether the legislature violated voters' fundamental right to "reform or alter" their government when it overturned redistricting reforms passed by initiative. Lower court found legislators violated that right and struck the current congressional map.
Ferguson v. Department of Transportation
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that counting prior participation in a diversionary program to resolve a driving-under-the-influence charge as a prior offense prompting a driver's license suspension for a subsequent conviction does not violate substantive due process under the state constitution.
Howell v. Cooper; North Carolina Bar and Tavern Association v. Stein
The North Carolina Supreme Court held, in two cases heard together, that bar owners pleaded colorable claims that executive orders shutting down or restricting operation of their businesses violated their right to earn a living.
Robust Missouri Dispensary 3 v. St. Louis County
Missouri Supreme Court held that the definition of "local government" in a 2022 amendment legalizing recreational marijuana use plainly prevents both counties and cities from imposing sales tax on the same marijuana products.
Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. State
New Jersey Supreme Court rejected claims by a group of hospitals that the state’s “charity care program” — which prevents them from turning away people unable to pay and from billing qualified patients — constitutes an illegal "per se" or regulatory taking under the state and federal constitutions.
State v. Haynes
Connecticut Supreme Court declined to depart from precedent, based on federal case law, permitting prosecutors to impeach a defendant's trial testimony using statements obtained in violation of the defendant's Miranda rights.
