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
State of Washington v. Gator's Custom Guns
Washington Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld the state's ban on selling or manufacturing magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. The majority held that large-capacity magazines are “not” arms within the scope of the state or federal constitutional right to bear arms, and the ability to purchase them is not "necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm in self-defense."
LeMieux v. Evers
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held, in a divided decision, that the governor did not exceed his partial veto authority under the state constitution when he altered digits, words, and punctuation in a budget bill to extend a school funding increase from 2 to 402 years.
Griffin v. State Board of Elections
A candidate for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, who lost by over 700 votes, claims that the state board of elections followed an incorrect process for registering voters and seeks to invalidate more than 60,000 votes.
Fisher v. Harter
Ruled that a statute granting peremptory grounds to state legislators to obtain continuances or extensions of fixed court dates was unconstitutional on its face under the separation-of-powers doctrine
In re The Thirtieth County Investigating Grand Jury
Ruled that supervising judge's failure to give notice and opportunity to respond to all named, unindicted individuals criticized in a proposed investigating grand jury report violated the unindicted individuals' constitutional rights to due process and reputation
State v. McGee
Held that the attenuation doctrine under the Washington Constitution did not apply to allow the admission of evidence discovered from a police report of a prior illegal stop
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina
Cakeshop owner refused to make blue and pink cake to celebrate prospective customer’s gender transition, citing free speech and free religious exercise rights. Colorado appellate court ruled the refusal violated state anti-discrimination laws. Colorado Supreme Court vacated that opinion on procedural grounds without addressing the merits of the free speech or free religion claims.
In re Benson
Dissent would have held that requiring counsel at all stages of the civil commitment process is central to the constitutionality of the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act: Sexually Dangerous Persons and Sexual Psychopathic Personalities
Johnson & Johnson v. Wilson
Held that under New Mexico's governing statutory framework, the Attorney General's authority to access executive agency materials for discovery purposes was fairly and necessarily implied and incurred no resulting constitutional violation
Ohio v. Isaiah Morris
Court will review court of appeals's decision finding that the state constitutional right to counsel is more protective than the 6th Amendment and requires a defendant, who has been formally charged and secured an attorney, to consult with counsel before any waiver of his right to have an attorney present during a police interrogation can be valid.
Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers v. State of Missouri
Asking the court to declare unconstitutional and block enforcement of Missouri’s ban on abortion, its ban on the use of telemedicine for abortion, the 72-hour waiting period for the procedure, and multiple other restrictive abortion-related laws.
McGill v. Thurston
Held that proposed constitutional amendment relating to county casino licenses was not unconstitutionally misleading as it appeared on the ballot
State v. Hoffman
Held that a defendant's un-Mirandized statements made in response to a police officer's words "normally attendant to arrest and custody" were not admissible if the officer's statements "were reasonably likely to lead to an incriminating response," thus constituting an "interrogation" under art. 1 sec. 10 of the Hawaii Constitution
