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
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.
Evers v. Marklein
Wisconsin Supreme Court held that statutes permitting a legislative committee to pause, object to, or suspend administrative rules for varying periods of time both before and after promulgation — used by the committee in this case effectively to block for three years a rule banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ patients — facially violate the state constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements.
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Supreme Court held that an 1849 law, which a local prosecutor had claimed was a near-total abortion ban, is impliedly repealed as to abortion by subsequent legislation and does not ban the procedure in the state.
People v. Lopez
Held that a defendant seeking to establish a violation of their constitutional right to conflict-free counsel is required to show both a conflict of interest and an adverse effect resulting from that conflict
Webster v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
Texas Supreme Court held that a disciplinary complaint collaterally accusing the first-assistant state attorney general of making misrepresentations in a petition filed in the U.S. Supreme Court alleging 2020 election “irregularities” violated separation-of-powers principles.
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
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
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.
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
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
