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 May 2025.
Featured Cases
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
South Carolina Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions, which state courts cannot review, under the state constitution.
League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature (LWV 1)
Utah Supreme Court sent partisan gerrymandering case back to lower court to consider whether the legislature violated voters' fundamental right to "reform or alter" their government when it overturned redistricting reforms passed by initiative. Lower court found legislators violated that right and struck the current congressional map.
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.
Sync Title Agency, LLC v. Arizona Corporation Commission
Arizona Court of Appeals held that juryless administrative hearings for civil securities charges do not violate the state constitution's jury trial right. The court relied on the same holding reached by a separate panel of the appeals court in EFG America v. Arizona Corporation Commission. The company plaintiff in EFG has petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review of this issue.
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.
Elliott v. City of College Station
Texas Supreme Court declined, based on constitutional avoidance and separation of powers principles, to resolve claim by residents of an extraterritorial jurisdiction that a clause preserving a “republican form of government” protects them from being subject to city regulations when they cannot vote in city elections. While the appeal was pending, the legislature changed the law to provide a process for opting out of the jurisdiction, of which the plaintiffs did not avail themselves.
Atlantic Games, Inc. v. Georgia Lottery Corporation
Concurral to denial of certiorari by Justice Peteerson questioned whether the court should reconsider existing caselaw on the nondelegation doctrine in a different case because, in their view, it does not comport with original public meaning
Amdor v. Grisham
Denied portion of original petition alleging that governor's executive orders declaring or addressing gun violence and drug abuse as public health emergencies pursuant to the state's Public Health Emergency Response Act violate either the scope of that law or separation of powers. But granted petition to extent it challenged part of the orders suspending a juvenile detention program for exceeding the limits of the state's police power.
People v. Eads
Michigan Court of Appeals held that a 50-year minimum sentence for a defendant convicted of second-degree murder as a juvenile is "cruel or unusual" punishment, finding that sentence constitutionally equivalent to the life-with-the-possibility-of-parole sentence the Michigan Supreme Court found "cruel or unusual" in People v. Stovall. The court also held that the defendant's sentence was disproportionate given the sentencing court's failure to consider his youth and its attendant characteristics as mitigating factors.
League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Pate
Iowa Supreme Court held organization did not have standing to seek to dissolve an injunction entered in a separate case that barred the secretary of state from providing voter registration forms in languages other than English, by claiming such materials fall within an exception to the state law underlying the injunction. The law generally requires all "official documents" to be in English but exempts "language usage required by or necessary to secure" state constitutional or federal law rights. According to the court, an organization's expenditure of resources in response to a law that does not violate or regulate its rights, status, or legal relations is not a legally cognizable injury.
People v. Hagestedt
Concurrence would have declined to lockstep with the United States constitution and engaged in an independent analysis of the Illinois constitutional provision
Rand v. New Hampshire
New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed trial court and held that statewide property tax scheme designed to pay for schools that allows a locality to retain any tax revenue in excess of what the district needs to fund an adequate education does not not violate a state constitutional clause empowering the legislature to levy "proportional" taxes on all New Hampshire residents. Also held that the state tax agency’s practice of setting negative local tax rates in unincorporated places with minimal or no education costs to offset nearly or completely the statewide rate does violate that clause.
Donaldson v. City of El Reno
Held that the retroactive appliation of amendment to the Sex Offenders Registration Act, which placed certain residency requirements on sex offenders, was not punitive and therefore did not violate the ex post facto clause of the Oklahoma Constitution
