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.
In re Texas House of Representatives
Held that separation-of-powers principles prevent the Texas legislature from using its subpoena power to halt a long-scheduled execution.
Crawford v. Commonwealth
Held that Philadelphia, city residents, and a gun-safety group had failed to state a claim that state laws preempting local gun control measures violate state constitutional due process, rejecting their argument that the clause protects a collective right to use local regulation as a means of self-defense from acts of gun violence.
State v. Vasquez
In response to certified questions from the state intermediate appellate court, held that a trial court may, of its own accord without a defense motion, order a hearing as to whether evidence should be suppressed. The questions arose after a trial judge noticed a pattern of warrantless searches and seizures in her docket and set suppression hearings in 30 cases, ultimately supressing evidence in 6 cases after the prosecution chose to dismiss 13.
In re Tom Malinowski
Appellants claim that state's ban on fusion voting violates rights to vote, to free speech and political association, to equal protection, and to assemble
Layla H v. Virginia
Plaintiffs claim that state’s practice of approving permits for fossil-fuel infrastructure violates substantive due process and public trust rights to natural resources, protected by the state constitution. They claim such practice infringes these rights by contributing to greenhouse-gas pollution and climate change. A trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed on the basis that the plaintiffs lack standing. Finding that there was no reversible error, the Virginia Supreme Court declined to grant review of the appellate court decision.
SisterSong v. Georgia
Plaintiffs claim that abortion ban violates the state constitution’s right to liberty and privacy and guarantee of equal protection
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.
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.
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
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."
