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Supreme Court held that an 1849 law, which a local prosecutor had claimed was a near-total abortion ban, is impliedly repealed as to abortion by subsequent legislation and does not ban the procedure in the state.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.
Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland
Held that a law that revived claims based on sex acts toward minors that were previously time-barred impairs a defendant's vested right to be free from a claim once its statute of limitations has expired, finding that a prohibition on laws reviving expired claims "runs as a theme" throughout the text of Maine's Constitution.
State v. Francisco Edgar Tirado
Held that North Carolina's "cruel or unusual" punishment clause — construed consistently with a separate state constitutional provision specifying the types of punishment laws may impose, without limitations based on age — would provide less protection against life-without-parole sentences for juveniles than the Eighth Amendment, so must be interpreted in lockstep with the federal "cruel and unusual" punishment clause.
Cherokee Nation v. U.S. Department of the Interior
Held that the governor possesses constitutional and statutory authority to represent the state’s interests in litigation involving tribal gaming contracts, including to choose the counsel who will represent his position. The governor was a named defendant in his official capacity in the underlying litigation, and the state attorney general sought to assume control of defending the state’s interests over the objection of the governor, who had already employed separate counsel to represent the state.
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.
Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification v. State
Reversed lower court's preliminary injunction against state laws requiring municipalities to allow multi-unit dwellings in single-family zoned areas, finding that the state constitutional right to acquire and protect property is subject to the state's police power and that the "possibility" of constitutional harm is insufficient to support an injunction.
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
Original petition challenging 2022 congressional district map as partisan gerrymandering in violation of the South Carolina Constitution and arguing that the more explicit guarantee of equal voting rights in the state constitution (as compared to the federal) make such a challenge justiciable, unlike federal partisan gerrymandering claims under Rucho v. Common Cause (U.S. Supreme Court 2019). The same map was previously challenged in federal court as racially discriminatory line-drawing in violation of the U.S. Constitution, but the U.S. Supreme Court in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024) found that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving that racial considerations predominated over partisan political motivations.
Knight v. Fontes
Will consider whether the retention election process for intermediate appellate judges violates the state constitution's "free and equal" election and equal protection provisions. Voters represented by Goldwater Institute allege that the retention elections -- in which voters currently vote only for the appellate judges who reside in their designated geographic area -- should be statewide, as appellate decisions may have statewide impact, and cases are assigned not based on a judge's residency and regularly transferred.
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.
Cuomo v. New York State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government
Ruled that state ethics commission does not violate separation of powers principles, finding that the legislature shares with the governor power to appoint and remove state officers under New York's constitution and the commission "provides an additional ethics enforcement mechanism narrowly targeted to the problems inherent in the Executive Branch’s self-regulation."
