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 February 2025.
Featured Cases
LeMieux v. Evers
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held, in a divided decision, that the governor did not exceed his partial veto authority under the state constitution when he altered digits, words, and punctuation in a budget bill to extend a school funding increase from 2 to 402 years.
Griffin v. State Board of Elections
A candidate for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, who lost by over 700 votes, claims that the state board of elections followed an incorrect process for registering voters and seeks in invalidate more than 60,000 votes.
People v. Taylor; People v. Czarnecki
Michigan Supreme Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences violate the state constitution’s protection against “cruel or unusual” punishment for anyone under age 21 at the time of the offense. The decision extends the court’s 2022 ruling in People v. Parks that such sentences are unconstitutional for those 18 or under.
State v. Adrian Fernandez
The Oregon Supreme Court will consider whether a law that restricts appellate courts’ authority to review a sentence that falls within the range set in guidelines by the state criminal justice commission precludes appellate review of a state constitutional challenge to that sentence. In an amicus brief, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that interpreting the law to preclude such appellate review would violate separation of powers and the state constitution's equality guarantee.
State ex rel. Hilgers v. Evnen
Nebraska Supreme Court held that provisions of a criminal justice reform law expanding parole eligibility, including retroactively to already-sentenced offenders, do not have the effect of substituting milder punishments for the ones already imposed, so do not infringe on the Board of Pardons’ exclusive commutation power under the state constitution.
Department of Environmental Protection v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau; Bowfin KeyCon Holdings v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will consider consolidated challenges to the state's participation in a regional program to cap greenhouse gases. The Commonwealth Court found the program to constitute a tax within the prerogative of the legislature, so concluded the governor's entry into the program by executive rulemaking violated separation of powers. Amicus groups and intervenors have argued the lower court's tax determination did not adequately take account of the state's duties under Pennsylvania's environmental rights amendment.
Krasner v. Sunday
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will consider the Philadelphia district attorney's challenge to a law that requires the state attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to have jurisdiction over crimes committed within the regional public transit system. The Commonwealth Court rejected the allegations, including that the law unconstitutionally divests the district attorney of jurisdiction over part of the office’s territory, nullifies the district attorney’s core prosecutorial functions, and violates the due process rights of defendants based on a provision preventing those charged by the special prosecutor from challenging his authority.
McCombie v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Refused to accept an original action by the state’s house majority leader and voters, claiming that house districts drawn in 2021 are partisan and not compact, finding the complaint untimely and barred by laches because the plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence in bringing suit. The dissenting justice said the majority was wrong to discredit the plaintiffs’ argument that they had to collect data from multiple election cycles. Because the Illinois high court has never adjudicated a state constitutional partisan gerrymandering claim before, he opined, it has not provided guidance on whether such data — which was required for federal constitutional claims until the U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) ruled such claims cannot be brought — is applicable for a state constitutional challenge.
Taking Offense v. State of California
The California Supreme Court will consider whether a law that makes it a misdemeanor for staff at long-term care facilities to “willfully and repeatedly” fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns violates federal and state free speech protections.
People v. Taylor; People v. Czarnecki
Michigan Supreme Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences violate the state constitution’s protection against “cruel or unusual” punishment for anyone under age 21 at the time of the offense. The decision extends the court’s 2022 ruling in People v. Parks that such sentences are unconstitutional for those 18 or under.
N'Da v. Hybl
Nebraska Supreme Court held that statutory requirement that applicant seeking certificate to provide nonemergency medical transport must show the proposed service is required by "public convenience and necessity" does not facially violate state constitutional due process or bans on "special laws" or laws granting "special privileges and immunities." Also held that that the Nebraska Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses are coextensive with their federal equivalents, so federal rational basis review applies to substantive due process challenges to economic regulations, not the heightened standard the court had applied in a line of cases from the early 20th century.
People v. Eads
Michigan Court of Appeals held that a 50-year minimum sentence for a defendant convicted of second-degree murder as a juvenile is "cruel or unusual" punishment, finding that sentence constitutionally equivalent to the life-with-the-possibility-of-parole sentence the Michigan Supreme Court found "cruel or unusual" in People v. Stovall. The court also held that the defendant's sentence was disproportionate given the sentencing court's failure to consider his youth and its attendant characteristics as mitigating factors.
People v. Kardasz; People v. Martin
Will consider, in two cases argued together, whether mandatory lifetime sex offender registration and electronic monitoring violate the state's “cruel or unusual" punishment clause or the federal 8th Amendment, and whether lifetime electronic monitoring constitutes an unreasonable search under the state or federal constitution. With respect to the sex offender registry law, at issue is whether the court should extend its July 2024 holding in People v. Lymon that application of the registry requirement to non-sexual offenses is “cruel or unusual” punishment, to those convicted of sexual offenses as well.
