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.
Assurecare Adult Home v. Bolina
Washington Supreme Court will consider a challenge by residential caregivers to elderly and disabled adults to an exclusion in the state's minimum wage law for live-in caregivers, brought under the state constitution's "privileges and immunities" clause.
J.P. Morgan Chase v. City of Corsicana
Texas Supreme Court will consider whether a state constitutional provision authorizing publicly-funded economic development programs is subject to the state constitution's "gift clauses," restricting grants of public money to private entities.
State v. Hidlebaugh
Iowa Supreme Court will consider whether a trial court's imposition of a harsher sentence based at least in part on the defendant's financial inability to purchase a home violates the state and federal equal protection clauses.
Center for Arizona Policy v. Arizona Secretary of State
Arizona Supreme Court will consider allegations that a campaign-disclosure law violates state constitutional rights to free speech and not to be disturbed in "private affairs," as well as separation of powers. Lower courts dismissed the claims.
Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections
Pennsylvania Supreme Court will consider whether it violates the state constitution's "free and equal" elections clause not to count a mail ballot because the voter failed to comply with a state law requiring the date to be handwritten on the ballot's outer envelope.
Commonwealth v. Shivers
Pennsylvania Supreme Court will consider whether a person fleeing from officers in a high-crime area, standing alone, can create reasonable suspicion to make a police stop lawful under the state constitution's search and seizure clause.
Chilutti v. Uber
Pennsylvania Supreme Court will review a lower court's decision to impose a stricter standard than federal courts have applied for when to enforce online arbitration agreements against a user who lacks actual knowledge of the terms, to protect the strong right to a jury trial in the state's constitution.
Commonwealth v. Council for Better Education; LaFontaine v. Council for Better Education
Kentucky Supreme Court will consider whether a law providing for public charter schools violates the state constitution's requirement that the legislature establish "an efficient system of common schools" and related provisions.
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.
