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Supreme Court held that an 1849 law, which a local prosecutor had claimed was a near-total abortion ban, is impliedly repealed as to abortion by subsequent legislation and does not ban the procedure in the state.
Richard Michael Fay vs David Pedro
Oregon trial court found the corrections department had unconstitutionally inflicted cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessary rigor by failing to provide adequate medical treatment and diagnosis to an inmate for serious injuries sustained in prison, and ordered specific medical care to be provided.
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."
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
Oregon Supreme Court considered whether a state constitutional clause providing that inmates should work or engage in on-the-job training while in custody but have no “legally enforceable right” to a job, training, or compensation, precludes an inmate who does not get such assignments from suing for lost wages. The court held the clause is not a barrier to pleading a claim for economic damages based on lost future income.
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.
Moe v. Yost
An Ohio appellate court struck down a state ban on gender-affirming medical care for trans youth, holding that it violated the state constitution's "health care freedom" amendment and the fundamental right of parents to seek appropriate medical care for their children. The court remanded the case to the trial court to impose a permanent injunction as to enforcement of the law's provisions banning the use of puberty blockers and hormones “for the purpose of assisting the minor individual with gender transition.” The state attorney general appealed the appellate decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, which stayed the ruling pending resolution of the appeal.
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
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.
Fossella v. Adams
Struck down New York City law that allows non-U.S. citizens who are lawful permanent residents or who have work authorizations to vote in municipal elections, finding that the state constitution restricts voting to citizens.
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.
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.
