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.
Gatehouse Media Ohio Holdings v. City of Columbus Police Department
Court will decide whether Ohio's Marsy's Law requires the identity of police officers involved in use of force incidents to be shielded and, if so, whether that requirement violates a state constitutional right of the public and press to inspect public records.
Zyst v. Miller
Oregon trial court held that the state prison's failure to provide medically necessary gender-affirming care and treatment to a transgender inmate, and to provide adequate conditions when the inmate was in a period of segregation, violated cruel and unusual punishment and "unnecessary rigor" clauses.
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
Perez v. City of San Antonio
Will consider whether a 2021 amendment, which bans the state and localities from prohibiting or limiting religious services, imposes a categorical ban on any limitation of a religious service regardless of the form taken or the government’s interest in the limitation.
State v. Thompson
Ruled that state constitutional and statutory provisions required a concurrence of only ten jurors for acquittal for offenses committed before January 1, 2019
State v. Velasquez
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that suppression of evidence as a remedy did not apply to officers' violation of Oklahoma's "knock and announce" requirement for executing a search warrant, and reaffirmed that the state's search and seizure clause is substantively "identical" to the Fourth Amendment.
In Re Application for Correction of Birth Record of Hailey Emmeline Adelaide
Court was unable to form a majority on the merits, which had the effect of leaving undisturbed lower court rulings denying a transgender woman’s request to change the sex marker on her birth certificate.
Webster v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
Held that a disciplinary complaint collaterally accusing the first-assistant state attorney general of making misrepresentations in a petition filed in the U.S. Supreme Court alleging 2020 election “irregularities” violated separation-of-powers principles. While the judicial branch (and the lawyer discipline commission derivatively) has the power to enforce compliance with conduct rules, the attorney general (and his first assistant derivatively) has exclusive authority to assess the propriety of filing suit and of "the representations forming the basis of the petitions that he files." If the contents of those pleadings are objectionable, permitting the court to which the pleadings are presented to scrutinize the contents and discipline the attorney general's office "wholly accommodates the legitimate interests of all branches of government." But a disciplinary complaint arising outside the litigation in which the challenged statements were made, "improperly invade[s] the executive branch's prerogatives and risk[s] the politicization and thus the independence of the judiciary."
Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission
Court will consider controversial new boundaries for municipal election districts redrawn after the 2020 census revealed a significant population disparity between the most and least populous wards, including whether these allegations amount to valid claims under New Jersey’s equal protection clause, civil rights law, and a statute requiring municipal wards to be “compact.”
An intermediate appellate court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that equal protection and “compactness” — a term not defined in the law or previous published decisions — require maintaining “communities of interest” and historic neighborhoods.
Ohio v. Isaiah Morris
Court will review court of appeals's decision finding that the state constitutional right to counsel is more protective than the 6th Amendment and requires a defendant, who has been formally charged and secured an attorney, to consult with counsel before any waiver of his right to have an attorney present during a police interrogation can be valid.
