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.
Adkins v. State
Idaho trial court denied motion to dismiss claim that the state's abortion bans — as applied to pregnant people that have "an emergent medical condition that poses a risk of death or risk to their health (including their fertility)" — violate the state constitution's "inalienable rights" clause, finding that the Idaho Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Planned Parenthood Great Northwest v. State that the bans were not facially invalid in all applications did not preclude this as-applied challenge.
Fisher v. Harter
Ruled that a statute granting peremptory grounds to state legislators to obtain continuances or extensions of fixed court dates was unconstitutional on its face under the separation-of-powers doctrine
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina
Cakeshop owner refused to make blue and pink cake to celebrate prospective customer’s gender transition, citing free speech and free religious exercise rights. Colorado appellate court ruled the refusal violated state anti-discrimination laws. Colorado Supreme Court vacated that opinion on procedural grounds without addressing the merits of the free speech or free religion claims.
In re The Thirtieth County Investigating Grand Jury
Ruled that supervising judge's failure to give notice and opportunity to respond to all named, unindicted individuals criticized in a proposed investigating grand jury report violated the unindicted individuals' constitutional rights to due process and reputation
State v. McGee
Held that the attenuation doctrine under the Washington Constitution did not apply to allow the admission of evidence discovered from a police report of a prior illegal stop
In re Benson
Dissent would have held that requiring counsel at all stages of the civil commitment process is central to the constitutionality of the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act: Sexually Dangerous Persons and Sexual Psychopathic Personalities
Johnson & Johnson v. Wilson
Held that under New Mexico's governing statutory framework, the Attorney General's authority to access executive agency materials for discovery purposes was fairly and necessarily implied and incurred no resulting constitutional violation
McGill v. Thurston
Held that proposed constitutional amendment relating to county casino licenses was not unconstitutionally misleading as it appeared on the ballot
State v. Hoffman
Held that a defendant's un-Mirandized statements made in response to a police officer's words "normally attendant to arrest and custody" were not admissible if the officer's statements "were reasonably likely to lead to an incriminating response," thus constituting an "interrogation" under art. 1 sec. 10 of the Hawaii Constitution
Mass Land Acquisition, LLC v. The First Judicial District Court of the State
Held that the Nevada Constitution's provision prohibiting the use of eminent domain to transfer property “from one private party to another private party” did not preclude an investor-owned public utility from exercising its delegated power of eminent domain to take an easement across a property for an intrastate natural gas distribution pipeline
