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
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Supreme Court held that an 1849 law, which a local prosecutor had claimed was a near-total abortion ban, is impliedly repealed as to abortion by subsequent legislation and does not ban the procedure in the state.
Contoocook Valley School District v. New Hampshire
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the state's existing education funding law is constitutionally inadequate and $7,356.01 per pupil as a minimum constitutional guidepost for the legislature, but reversed the trial court's injunction directing the state immediately to pay that amount because the court failed to give adequate weight to separation of powers concerns.
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.
Attorney General v. Hood
Held that the state’s civil rights charges against the Nationalist Social Club-131, a white nationalist and neo-Nazi organization operating in the New England area, in connection with a July 2022 incident where members displayed banners reading “KEEP NEW ENGLAND WHITE” from a highway overpass without a permit, impermissibly chilled the defendant’s constitutional right of free speech and premised on an overbroad reading of the statute
Taking Offense v. State of California
The California Supreme Court will consider whether a law that makes it a misdemeanor for staff at long-term care facilities to “willfully and repeatedly” fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns violates federal and state free speech protections.
Hicks v. State
Will consider whether Wyoming's "cruel or unusual" punishment clause provides greater protections against mandatory life-without-parole sentences for late adolescents (those who were under 21 at the time of the crime) than the federal Eighth Amendment does. Will also consider whether such sentences violate state constitutional clauses providing the "penal code shall be framed on the humane principles of reformation and prevention" and for equal protection.
Montana Environmental Information Center & Sierra Club v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Held that the Department of Environmental Quality appropriately considered noise impacts of a proposed project as required under the Montana Environmental Policy Act, but did not analyze lighting impacts and greenhouse gas emissions as required under the then-applicable language of the Act
Montana Trout Unlimited v. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation
Held that the exemption of dewatering from the Montana Water Use Act's permitting requirements did not violate the water rights section of the state's constitution
Gotay v. Creen
Held that, given the nature of the state’s custody of children, a “special relationship” exists between foster children and the state that imposes an affirmative duty on the state to ensure a reasonably safe foster home environment. But found the state defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff parent and guardian's substantive due process claim because the state employees did not proximately cause the affected children's injuries.
State v. Nelson
Held that community custody conditions requiring the criminal defendant submit to breath analysis and urinalysis testing to monitor compliance with conditions prohibiting use of alcohol and unprescribed drugs were supported by authority of law, and thus were constitutional under art. 1 sec. 7 of the Washington Constitution, regardless of whether they were related to his specific crimes
People v. Kardasz; People v. Martin
Will consider, in two cases argued together, whether mandatory lifetime sex offender registration and electronic monitoring violate the state's “cruel or unusual" punishment clause or the federal 8th Amendment, and whether lifetime electronic monitoring constitutes an unreasonable search under the state or federal constitution. With respect to the sex offender registry law, at issue is whether the court should extend its July 2024 holding in People v. Lymon that application of the registry requirement to non-sexual offenses is “cruel or unusual” punishment, to those convicted of sexual offenses as well.
People v. Jennings
Will consider what standard Michigan courts should adopt to determine whether prosecutorial misconduct bars retrial under the state’s double jeopardy clause. The defendant argues that the federal constitutional standard -- which requires proof that a prosecutor specifically intended to cause a mistrial -- inadequately protects the principles of double jeopardy and insufficiently deters egregious conduct, so an objective standard should apply under the Michigan Constitution.
Bailey v. McKintosh County, Webster v. McIntosh County, McIntosh County v. Webster
Will consider whether to uphold a lower court order stopping a special election, after early voting had already begun, on a local referendum to repeal zoning changes that would increase permissible house sizes in a historic community of slave descendants. The lower court ruled that a state constitutional provision allowing citizens to petition to repeal or amend county ordinances by referendum does not extend to zoning ordinances.
