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.
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.
Doe v. Uthmeier
A 17-year-old petitioned for a judicial waiver so that she may consent to an abortion without parental notification and consent. A Florida intermediate appellate court held that the judicial waiver law, which allows parental consent to be bypassed upon certain trial court findings, violates parents' due process rights. Anticipating Florida Supreme Court review, the intermediate court certified the question of the law's constitutionality to the state high court.
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.
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.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. South Carolina (Planned Parenthood 2)
South Carolina Supreme Court held that a "fetal heartbeat" — as defined in a state law banning most abortions at the point such a heartbeat is detected — occurs when electrical impulses are first detectable as a "sound" with diagnostic medical technology and a medical professional observes those electrical impulses as a "steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart." Although declining to define that point in terms of a number of weeks, the court said it "occurs in most instances at approximately six weeks of pregnancy." The court also held that the law is not unconstitutionally vague.
Adkins v. State
Idaho trial court denied motion to dismiss claim that the state's abortion bans — as applied to pregnant people that have "an emergent medical condition that poses a risk of death or risk to their health (including their fertility)" — violate the state constitution's "inalienable rights" clause, finding that the Idaho Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Planned Parenthood Great Northwest v. State that the bans were not facially invalid in all applications did not preclude this as-applied challenge.
Reuss v. Arizona
Healthcare providers sought to block enforcement of Arizona's 15-week abortion ban on the basis that it violates a state constitutional amendment passed in November 2024 that establishes a fundamental right to pre-viability abortion. On plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the state did not contest, the trial court permanently blocked the ban.
Texas v. Margaret Daley Carpenter
Texas’s attorney general sued a New York doctor for mailing abortion-including drugs to a woman in Texas, claiming she practiced medicine in Texas without a Texas license and improperly aided an abortion. After the doctor did not respond to the complaint, a Texas trial court issued a default judgment enjoining her from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to state residents and imposing $100,000 in civil penalties, as sought by the attorney general.
Access Independent Health Services v. Wrigley
Will consider whether trial court erred in striking down near-total abortion ban on bases that the law violates a woman's fundamental right to obtain an abortion pre-viability and the exceptions are unconstitutionally vague. The North Dakota Supreme Court previously refused to stay the trial court ruling, finding at that juncture that the state had not shown it was likely to prevail on appeal.
Planned Parenthood v. Urmanski
Will determine whether a 175-year old law, if interpreted in separate case Kaul v. Urmanski to ban abortions except to save the mother's life, violates the woman's and her physician's inherent rights to life and liberty and equal protection under the state constitution. Planned Parenthood argues that the inherent rights clause protects a person’s right to bodily integrity and autonomy, including the decision of whether and when to have a child.
