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.
White v. City of Mableton
Held that legislation that created and incorporated a city and created community improvement districts within it did not violate the Illinois Constitution's single subject rule
Wasserman v. Franklin County
Held that federal third-party standing was not compatible with Georgia's well-settled constitutional standing rule requiring a plaintiff to assert her own rights to maintain an action; therefore, a plaintiff cannot establish constitutional standing in Georgia courts asserting only the rights of third parties not before the court
People v. White
Held that an open, blind, guilty plea with no agreement as to sentence did not waive a constitutional challenge to the sentence, overruling prior precedent holding otherwise
Martin v. Goodrich Corporation
Prospective application of a provision of the Worker's Occupational Disease Act creating an exception to the exclusivity of the Act for claims which would otherwise be precluded by a period of repose did not violate employer's right to due process
Johnson v. Board of Education
Held that public schools is a "public accommodation" within the meaning of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, which makes discriminatory conduct in a public accommodation unlawful, overruling prior ruling holding otherwise
People v. Poole
Michigan Supreme Court held that its 2022 decision in People v. Parks — that mandatorily sentencing to life-without-parole defendants who were 18 at the time of their charged crimes violates the state's "cruel or unusual" punishment clause — applies retroactively. Thus, defendants in cases where the period for direct review had expired when Parks was decided are entitled to resentencing.
Valoaga v. State
Held that Department of Corrections' application of preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than clear and convincing evidence standard, in disciplinary proceedings did not violate pretrial inmate's right to due process
State v. Dodge
Held that the defendant adequately preserved, for purposes of appellate review, his argument that his second trial violated his rights against double jeopardy
People v. Langston
Court will consider constitutionality of mandatory application of life-without-parole sentences to adults convicted of “felony murder" when there is no evidence defendant acted with malice.
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.
