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.
State v. Davieontray Breax
Louisiana Supreme Court held that the state constitution bars prosecutors from joining capital charges with other felony charges in one indictment.
J.F. v. St. Vincent Hospital
Indiana Supreme Court established a new approach to mootness for the state constitutional and statutory right to appeal court-ordered temporary involuntary commitments confining individuals to mental health treatment facilities, holding that expiration of such an order generally will not bar appeal. Expiration will only moot an appeal if the appellee can show the absence of any collateral consequence from the temporary commitment order.
Commonwealth v. Govan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that imposition of GPS monitoring as a condition of pretrial release for a defendant whose conduct directly implicated state interests in protecting alleged crime and domestic violence victims and potential witnesses was constitutional under MA’s search and seizure clause. The court also held that an officer’s subsequent retrieval and review of an hour of defendant’s GPS location data in connection with investigating a new crime was not a search for state constitutional purposes because the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the accessed information.
Opternative, Inc. v. South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners
Will consider whether a law that prevents telehealth companies from providing online vision tests for glasses and contact prescriptions in the state violates the businesses’ equal protection and due process rights under the South Carolina Constitution.
State v. Adrian Fernandez
The Oregon Supreme Court will consider whether a law that restricts appellate courts’ authority to review a sentence that falls within the range set in guidelines by the state criminal justice commission precludes appellate review of a state constitutional challenge to that sentence. In an amicus brief, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that interpreting the law to preclude such appellate review would violate separation of powers and the state constitution's equality guarantee.
Stary v. Ethridge
Texas Supreme Court held that due process requires a heightened evidentiary standard to support a protective order prohibitng contact between a parent and child for longer than two years, likening such an order to a government's termination of parental rights. Instead of the ordinary civil preponderance of the evidence standard, a court must find the statutory requirements for such an order by clear and convincing evidence and must consider the best interests of the child.
Birthmark Doula Collective v. State of Louisiana
Reproductive healthcare providers and advocates challenge a state law that reclassifies mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances, arguing that the law unconstitutionally regulates and delays access to medications that people need for non-abortion reasons, often for emergencies such as postpartum hemorrhage, simply because those medications may also be used for an abortion. They allege the law violates the state constitution's equal protection clause and single-subject and germane-amendment rules.
State Department of Education & Early Development v. Alexander
Held that statutes permitting local school districts to operate correspondence study programs as alternative to traditional schooling and authorizing allotments of public funds to purchase nonsectarian educational services and materials did not facially violate state constitutional prohibition on using public funds for the direct benefit of religious or private educational institutions
State ex rel. Hilgers v. Evnen
Nebraska Supreme Court held that provisions of a criminal justice reform law expanding parole eligibility, including retroactively to already-sentenced offenders, do not have the effect of substituting milder punishments for the ones already imposed, so do not infringe on the Board of Pardons’ exclusive commutation power under the state constitution.
State v. Cohee
Held that the state was entitled to a writ of prohibition to effectively compel a lower court judge to impose a recidivist life sentence, finding that the state’s pursuit of such a sentence did not violate equal protection and the imposition of such sentence for fleeing from a law enforcement officer with reckless indifference would not violate proportionality clause of state constitution
