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 October 2025.
Featured Cases
Equal Ground Education Fund v. Byrd; Vaccari v. Byrd; Common Cause v. DeSantis
Florida Supreme Court denied petition seeking to halt use of the state's new congressional map while consolidated challenges to the map under the state's Fair Districts Amendment proceed. An appellate court is reviewing a trial court's denial of a temporary injunction
NAACP v. Tennessee
Tennessee lower court dismissed challenge to the state's mid-decade congressional redistricting, which claimed the legislature did not have authority to alter state laws to allow the redistrictring because those alterations were not specifically included in the governor's proclamation calling the session
McDougle v. Scott
Virginia Supreme Court, in a split decision, nullified a constitutional amendment approved by voters that would have allowed the state's congressional districts to be redrawn, finding the legislative process used for the amendment violated the state constitution
Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund v. Stitt
Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a law providing that directors of a trust overseeing allocation of state funds may be removed at will violated a constitutional amendment providing the directors shall serve a specific term
State v. Hidlebaugh
Iowa Supreme Court held that a prison sentence resulting in part from a defendant's failure to satisfy a financial obligation despite his good faith effort to do so, violated state and federal equal protection and due process
Rutledge v. Clearway Energy Group LLC
Delaware Supreme Court upheld corporate law changes that retroactively alter the standard of review and relief the Chancery Court may award for certain transactions involving controlling shareholders
Northwest Landowners Association v. State
The North Dakota Supreme Court held, in part, that pre-condemnation survey provisions that authorize survey access to landowners' properties is not facially invalid under state takings laws because there is no protected interested in excluding limited, innocuous intrusion by pre-condemnation surveyors
Ward v. State
The Indiana Supreme Court held that post-conviction relief under the state's constitution does not apply to the method in which that sentence is carried out and is instead limited to the conviction or sentence
State v. Engroff
The Maine Supreme Court held that the admission a video-recorded forensic interview of a child victim does not violate a defendant’s confrontation rights under the Maine Constitution
Maine State Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Labor
The Maine Supreme Court held that the Department of Labor rule requiring employers to pay nonrefundable premiums into the Paid Family and Medical Leave fund did not constitute a regulatory taking under the Maine and U.S. Constitutions
State v. Jacques
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that its state constitution does not entitle a criminal defendant to a second probable cause hearing after a conviction is reversed unless there is a jurisdictional defect in the original hearing
North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Philip Morris U.S., Inc.
The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the state's Office of Administrative Hearings does not have jurisdiction to hear as-applied constitutional challenges to tax statutes, and allowing it to decide such challenges would violate the Separation of Powers Clause
Morris v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that double taxation by two states does not violate the Commerce Clause or the state's constitution because it did not inherently discriminate against interstate commerce
