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 October 2024.
Featured Cases
Held v. Montana
Held that Montana’s policy of excluding greenhouse gas emissions and related climate impacts from environmental reviews of fossil fuel projects violated the state constitution’s guarantee of a clean and healthful environment.
Evers v. Marklein
Court will decide whether a legislative committee’s vetoes of an agency rule that would ban the practice of “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ patients violates the separation of powers principles in the Wisconsin Constitution.
In an earlier installment of the case, the court ruled 6–1 that the law permitting the effective legislative veto of agency land-conservation expenditures violated the executive branch’s “core power” to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” While the Wisconsin Constitution gives the legislature authority to create an agency, define its parameters, and appropriate funds for it, the power to spend those funds in accordance with legislation lies solely with the executive, the court said.
People v. Taylor
Defendant argues that mandatory life-without-parole sentences constitute unconstitutional cruel punishment under the Michigan Constitution for those who were 20 or younger at the time of commission of a crime. A 2022 court ruling held such sentences were unconstitutional for those 18-years-old and younger.
State v. Pulizzi
Ruled that the criminal defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his curbside garbage based on the city's waste collection ordinance requiring special permission from the city for an exemption from waste collection service
In re S.M.
Held that an indigent parent or custodial respondent in an abuse and neglect case has a right to appointed counsel at all stages of the proceedings, but they may elect to continue self-represented upon a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel
Murray v. Dalton (In re Doe)
Held that Idaho’s statutes governing powers and duties of guardianship and governing resignation, removal, modification, or termination proceedings for guardians of minors, were rationally related to legitimate government interest in the minor’s safety and best interests and, thus, were not unconstitutionally broad or vague in violation of due process
Amedure v. State
Ruled that Election Law § 9-209 (2) (g), which provides that if the members of a bipartisan local board charged with reviewing ballots are split as to a ballot's validity, the ballot shall be cast and canvassed, did not violate the equal representation mandate set forth in article II, section 8 of the New York Constitution and principles of judicial review and separation of powers
Nevada Policy Research Institute v. Miller
Held that respondents' dual service as legislators and employees of state or local government did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers
People v. Lopez
Held that a defendant seeking to establish a violation of their constitutional right to conflict-free counsel is required to show both a conflict of interest and an adverse effect resulting from that conflict
People v. Taylor
Defendant argues that mandatory life-without-parole sentences constitute unconstitutional cruel punishment under the Michigan Constitution for those who were 20 or younger at the time of commission of a crime. A 2022 court ruling held such sentences were unconstitutional for those 18-years-old and younger.
People v. Poole
Defendants who had already exhausted their direct appeals when a 2022 state supreme court decision held mandatory life-without-parole sentences were unconstitutional for those 18-years-old and younger are asking the court to determine if they may now seek resentencing.
In re N.S.
Iowa Supreme Court issued divided opinion upholding state process for restoring gun rights revoked by federal law after an involuntary commitment, holding the process does not violate 2022's Amendment 1A that expressly required judges to apply strict scrutiny to gun regulations
