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
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.
Kaul v. Urmanski
Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an 1849 law, which a local prosecutor had claimed was a near-total abortion ban, is impliedly repealed as to abortion by subsequent legislation and does not ban the procedure in the state.
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.
Sikora v. Iowa
Iowa Supreme Court held that a former incarcerated person’s state constitutional and tort damages claims against the state and correction officers for releasing him from prison five months late were barred by the legislature’s choice not to waive sovereign immunity for false imprisonment claims. Three dissenting justices would have held that the right to sue an official for false imprisonment was part of the common law at the state constitution’s adoption and was secured by its liberty guarantees, precluding legislators from eliminating that right in the state tort claims act.
State v. City of San Antonio
Court of Appeals blocked a city from distributing payments under a $100,000 fund created to cover reproductive healthcare costs, which may include out-of-state travel for abortion care, while a full appeal is pending. Preliminarily held the fund violates the state constitution's gift clause because sending residents to undergo procedures out of state that Texas prohibits within the state does not count as a public purpose. Although the city had not yet disbursed any money and argued it still had the option to choose not to pay for out-of-state abortion travel, the panel found it sufficiently likely such payment would occur for the dispute to be ripe.
State v. Amble
Iowa Supreme Court revisited its 2021 decision in State v. Wright that the state's search and seizure clause requires police to obtain a warrant before searching garbage placed curbside for collection, finding that subsequent enactment of a state statute providing such garbage "shall be deemed abandoned property" means a warrant is no longer constitutionally required. The majority reasoned that Wright relied on "positive law" -- a local anti-scavening ordinance prohibiting anyone but licensed trash collectors from picking up trash -- to define private property rights, and the state statute changed that positive law by preempting the local ordinance. A dissent opined that the majority's position allows legislative "end-runs" of constitutional rights and disregards an overarching reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis.
Josh Kaul v. Wisconsin State Legislature
Wisconsin Supreme Court held a law giving a legislative committee authority to approve or disprove civil settlements reached by the state justice department violates separation of powers as applied to civil enforcement actions and civil cases brought on behalf of executive agencies. Settling these types of actions is within the core power of the executive branch, as the legislature has failed to demonstrate that doing so implicates an institutional interest giving lawmakers a shared constitutional role.
State v. James Ellis
Will consider whether restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence is punishment subject to the limits on excessive fines in the federal and state constitutions and, if so, whether those clauses require sentencing courts to analyze the defendant’s ability to pay in setting the amount.
State v. Spencer
Illinois Supreme Court held that an aggregate 100-year prison sentence for a defendant who was 20 when the crimes occurred is not a de facto life sentence because a state statute makes first-degree murder defendants under 21 eligible for parole after 20 years and mandates that the reviewing board consider mitigating circumstances related to the defendant’s youth. The court further held that the the fact the sentence is not de facto life does not foreclose the defendant from bringing an as-applied challenge to his sentence under the state constitution’s “proportionate penalties” clause in a post-conviction petition.
State v. Sabra Danielson, State v. Simone Nelson
Will consider the defendants' argument that it violates equal protection to refund fines or fees paid in cash when a conviction is vacated, but not to reimburse defendants who performed community service at the equivalent of minimum wages to satisfy financial obligations they were unable to pay.
