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Supreme Court held that an 1849 law, which a local prosecutor had claimed was a near-total abortion ban, is impliedly repealed as to abortion by subsequent legislation and does not ban the procedure in the state.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.
Moe v. Yost
An Ohio appellate court struck down a state ban on gender-affirming medical care for trans youth, holding that it violated the state constitution's "health care freedom" amendment and the fundamental right of parents to seek appropriate medical care for their children. The court remanded the case to the trial court to impose a permanent injunction as to enforcement of the law's provisions banning the use of puberty blockers and hormones “for the purpose of assisting the minor individual with gender transition.” The state attorney general has appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.
State v. Waldner
Held that privacy right in the state's victims'-rights amendment (known, along with versions in other states, as "Marsy's Law") is not self-executing, but a statute providing for appeal of certain orders affecting "substantial rights" may be used by crime victims to appeal denials of motions to quash discovery to enforce that privacy right. Also held that the right to privacy in the amendment is not an absolute protection from discovery requests and must be balanced against defendants' due process rights. For a discovery request to be upheld, a defendant must establish the relevance, admissibility, and specificity of the information sought.
City of Fargo v. State
Held that a 2023 statute barring localities from enacting ordinances related to the purchase, sale, or possession of firearms and ammunitions that are more restrictive than state law preempted the city of Fargo’s limits on such sales and did not violate state constitutional “home rule” clauses as applied to Fargo’s restrictions.
Richard Michael Fay vs David Pedro
Oregon trial court found the corrections department had unconstitutionally inflicted cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessary rigor by failing to provide adequate medical treatment and diagnosis to an inmate for serious injuries sustained in prison, and ordered specific medical care to be provided.
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
Oregon Supreme Court considered whether provisions of the Oregon Constitution that say inmates should work or engage in on-the-job training while in custody but have no “legally enforceable right” to a job, training, or to “compensation for work or labor,” preclude an inmate who does not get such assignments from suing for lost wages. The court held that the provisions are not a barrier to pleading a claim for economic damages based on lost future income and reversed grant of a motion to dismiss.
Ellutzi v. Regents of the University of California
Two students and a professor allege university violated their state and federal constitutional rights to due process, speech, and assembly by summarily banning them from campus after they failed to disperse when the university deployed law enforcement to dismantle a "Gaza Solidarity Encampment." The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, citing "disputed evidence."
League of Women Voters of Missouri v. State
Trial court permanently enjoined provisions restricting voter registration and absentee ballot solicitation activities, finding that they burden core political speech, constitute content- and viewpoint-discrimination, and are overbroad, in violation of state constitutional speech protections. The court also held that the provisions violate civic engagement groups' state constitutional right to associate and are unconstitutionally vague. The court determined that because the laws restrict election-related speech, not the mechanics of elections, strict scrutiny review applies.
Missouri State Conference of the NAACP v. State
Trial court upheld voter identification requirements, finding them consistent with a 2016 state constitutional amendment that a voter "may be required by general law to identify himself or herself" and not to violate the state constitutional right to vote or equal protection. The trial court determined that rational basis review is the appropriate level of scrunity, but said the law would satisfy any level.
State v. Pulizzi
Ruled that the criminal defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his curbside garbage based on the city's waste collection ordinance requiring special permission from the city for an exemption from waste collection service
Montenegro v. Fontes
WIll consider whether portion of campaign-disclosure law that says rules and enforcement activity by a commission charged with implementing the law are not subject to limit by any "legislative governmental body" -- which the trial court found to violate separation of powers principles -- is severable from the rest of the law. Will also consider whether legislators have standing to claim that the law's grant of general implementing power to the commission interferes with legislative power.
