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Supreme Court held that an 1849 law, which a local prosecutor had claimed was a near-total abortion ban, is impliedly repealed as to abortion by subsequent legislation and does not ban the procedure in the state.
State of Washington v. Luthi
Held that an in-court holding cell, even during pretrial hearings when a jury is not present, undermines the presumption of innocence, limits defendants’ ability to confer confidentially with counsel, and is contrary to the “formal dignity” of the courtroom and treating defendants’ respectfully.
People v. Watkins
Held that defense counsel's decision to forgo a request for a cross-racial identification charge did not constitute an “egregious” single error that rose to level of constitutionally ineffective assistance
Fearrington v. City of Greenville
Ruled that an Act governing red light cameras in a city did not violate the Fines and Forfeitures Clause of the North Carolina Constitution
Independent School District No. 12 v. State of Oklahoma
Ruled in a unanimous decision, against the state board and instructed it to dismiss the enforcement proceedings it brought against a district school library over certain books that allegedly violated new state board rules against sexualized content.
State v. Brown
Held that the defendant had a legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy when he spoke with his mother in police station interview room under both the Fourth Amendment and Rhode Island's right against self-incrimination
Texas Department of Transportation v. Self
Held that the government must pay compensation to the landowners when it intentionally destroys private property for public use, even when it acted with the mistaken belief that it has a legal right to do so
Thurston v. The League of Women Voters of Arkansas
Held that Acts placing restrictions on absentee ballots and requiring valid photographic identification to cast a ballot did not clearly violate state constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection and free and equal elections
Albence v. Mennella
The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed for lack of standing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a 2019 law permitting early in-person voting “at least 10 days before an election" and a 2010 statute allowing some voters who are already eligible to vote absentee to apply for permanent absentee status.
Schools Over Stadiums v. Thompson
Held that a petition seeking to place a referendum on the ballot to strike sections of a bill authorizing the financing and construction of a Major League Baseball stadium in the county violated the constitution's full-text requirement because it did not include the entirety of the bill's language
Commonwealth v. Hastings
Ruled that an indigent defendant's motion for funds to retain an expert for his parole hearing was excepted from indigency statute's restrictions because it implicated his State constitutional right to reasonable disability accommodations in parole proceedings
