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
Republican National Committee v. Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc; Georgia v. Eternal Vigilance Action
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled invalid under state nondelegation principles four of seven rules passed by the Georgia State Election board, while upholding one rule. The court did not decide the validity of two other rules, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the provisions.
Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State (Planned Parenthood 1)
Montana Supreme Court held that a 20-week abortion ban; restrictions on medication abortions, including a telehealth ban and 24-hour waiting period; and requirement that providers give patients an opportunity to view an ultrasound and listen to a fetal heartbeat violate the express right to privacy in the state constitution.
Care and Prevention of Eve
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that department of children and families violated the state constitution's free exercise of religion protection when it vaccinated a child temporarily in its custody over the religious objections of her parents. Parents who have temporarily lost custody of their children retain a residual right to direct their religious upbringing, and the state must demonstrate that allowing the child to remain unvaccinated would substantially hinder the department’s compelling interest in the vaccination.
Montenegro v. Fontes
WIll consider whether portion of campaign-disclosure law that says rules and enforcement activity by a commission charged with implementing the law are not subject to limit by any "legislative governmental body" -- which the trial court found to violate separation of powers principles -- is severable from the rest of the law. Will also consider whether legislators have standing to claim that the law's grant of general implementing power to the commission interferes with legislative power.
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
Oregon Supreme Court considered whether provisions of the Oregon Constitution that say inmates should work or engage in on-the-job training while in custody but have no “legally enforceable right” to a job, training, or to “compensation for work or labor,” preclude an inmate who does not get such assignments from suing for lost wages. The court held that the provisions are not a barrier to pleading a claim for economic damages based on lost future income and reversed grant of a motion to dismiss.
Ellutzi v. Regents of the University of California
Two students and a professor allege university violated their state and federal constitutional rights to due process, speech, and assembly by summarily banning them from campus after they failed to disperse when the university deployed law enforcement to dismantle a "Gaza Solidarity Encampment." The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, citing "disputed evidence."
Planned Parenthood v. Urmanski
Will determine whether a 175-year old law, if interpreted in separate case Kaul v. Urmanski to ban abortions except to save the mother's life, violates the woman's and her physician's inherent rights to life and liberty and equal protection under the state constitution. Planned Parenthood argues that the inherent rights clause protects a person’s right to bodily integrity and autonomy, including the decision of whether and when to have a child.
League of Women Voters of Missouri v. State
Trial court permanently enjoined provisions restricting voter registration and absentee ballot solicitation activities, finding that they burden core political speech, constitute content- and viewpoint-discrimination, and are overbroad, in violation of state constitutional speech protections. The court also held that the provisions violate civic engagement groups' state constitutional right to associate and are unconstitutionally vague. The court determined that because the laws restrict election-related speech, not the mechanics of elections, strict scrutiny review applies.
Missouri State Conference of the NAACP v. State
Trial court upheld voter identification requirements, finding them consistent with a 2016 state constitutional amendment that a voter "may be required by general law to identify himself or herself" and not to violate the state constitutional right to vote or equal protection. The trial court determined that rational basis review is the appropriate level of scrunity, but said the law would satisfy any level.
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 Courtney Rae Hudson v. Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts
Relying on the state high court's general superintending control over all state courts, vacated a circuit court preliminary injunction that had prevented the administrative office of the courts and the office of professional conduct from complying with a FOIA request for certain communications with the state supreme court chief justice. The state high court also referred the chief justice and her attorney, who had sought the injunction, to state ethics bodies.
Blackmon v. State
Plaintiffs who allege they were denied, or received delayed, medically necessary abortion care due to doctors' confusion regarding the scope of the medical necessity exception in the state's abortion ban challenge that exception as violating their state constitutional rights to life and equal protection and as unconstitutionally vague. A Tennessee trial court held the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits as to each challenge, at least with respect to certain maternal medical conditions the parties agreed fall within the exception, and granted temporary relief declaring the exception to include those conditions.
Mitchell v. University of North Carolina Board of Governors
Will consider whether public university's termination of a tenured professor based, in part, on a letter he wrote to a department chair using offensive language violates the First Amendment, and whether lower courts' deference to the interpretation put forth by the university -- a state agency -- of its faculty employment regulations violates separation of powers.
