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Supreme Court held that an 1849 law, which a local prosecutor had claimed was a near-total abortion ban, is impliedly repealed as to abortion by subsequent legislation and does not ban the procedure in the state.
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.
Grube v. Trader; State v. Rogan
Hawaii Supreme Court held that law requiring courts to "seal or otherwise remove all judiciary files" from any public electronic judicial database must be interpreted as providing two options to avoid state constitutional right to public access and separation of powers issues: removal of judicial records from the qualifying database, but keeping them publicly available for in-person review; or sealing of court records on a case-by-case basis, subject to procedural and substantive safeguards.
Schwartz v. Washington County
Will consider whether statutes that establish state tobacco retail licenses and that authorize licensees to sell tobacco products and vaping devices preempt a county ordinance that prohibits the sale of flavored tobacco products and vapes. An intermediate court found the statutes did not preempt the county ordinance.
Paxton v. Annunciation House
Texas Supreme Court held that a clause empowering the state attorney general to seek judicial forfeiture of corporate charters permits him to bring a quo warranto action to shut down a Catholic charity based on allegations it violated a state law against harboring undocumented immigrants. The state's religious freedom restoration act does not bar the claim from being filed, and the law is neither unconstitutionally vague nor precluded by federal immigration law. Remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the merits.
Stephens v. State
Georgia Supreme Court upheld, under the state’s right to bear arms clause, a law banning individuals younger than 21 from carrying handguns in public, unless they have military training. Declined to import federal Second Amendment standards into Georgia’s clause, noting it distinctly and expressly grants the legislature power to regulate the manner in which firearms may be carried.
Planned Parenthood v. Urmanski
Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed Planned Parenthood's action contending that a 175-year old law, if interpreted by the court to ban abortions, violates pregnant people and their physicians' inherent rights to life and liberty and equal protection under the state constitution. The case was dismissed because the court held in Kaul v. Urmanski that the law does not ban abortions.
State of North Carolina v. Chambers
North Carolina Supreme Court upheld a law that allows a juror to be excused and substituted by an alternate after criminal trial deliberations have begun. Because the law requires the trial court to instruct the jury to begin deliberations anew, the majority said, a verdict will still be reached by the 12 people the state constitutional jury right guarantees, not 13.
Norfolk Southern Railway v. State Corporation Commission
Virginia Supreme Court held that a law permitting broadband service providers to install fiber optic cables across railroad property violates a state constitutional amendment providing robust "public use" requirements for eminent domain, as applied to a private company seeking to expand its network for financial gain.
City of Wenatchee v. Stearns
Washington Supreme Court upheld the legality, under the state's private affairs clause and the Fourth Amendment, of a police stop that was based on information received in a 911 call. A stop based on a 911 tip is lawful when circumstances indicate the tip is reliable and it contains a factual basis to give the officer reasonable suspicion of a crime, even if how the caller gathered the facts conveyed in the tip is not established.
Isaacson v. Arizona
Healthcare providers seek to block enforcement of remaining abortion restrictions, including an in-person pre-procedure visit requirement, 24-hour waiting period, and telemedicine ban for medication abortions, on the basis that they violate a state constitutional amendment passed in November 2024 that establishes a fundamental right to pre-viability abortion.
