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.
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.
O’Neil v. Gianforte
Held that the state constitution’s protection of the public’s “right to know” allows for a limited gubernatorial privilege exception if the governor meets the “high bar of demonstrating that the information is essential to carrying out a constitutional duty and that its disclosure would chill future candor.” Also held that the process for determining whether a particular document otherwise subject to the "right to know" may be shielded by gubernatorial privilege should be the same as for other "candor privileges" (e.g., attorney-client, doctor-patient), including in camera review by the trial court to determine the proper scope. Remanded to the district court to conduct such review with respect to the requested agency documents.
Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs
Washington Supreme Court held requirement that election workers verify voter signatures on mail ballots, when coupled with the state’s recently expanded process for notifying voters and providing an opportunity to cure when a signature mismatch is identified, does not facially violate the state constitution’s free and equal elections, privileges and immunities, or due process clause.
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.
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.
McKay v. State
Reversed trial court ruling that a 2023 law that gives the attorney general control over the state’s defense of the imposition of the death penalty on collateral review violates the state constitutional provision governing the duties of district attorneys
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."
Richard Michael Fay v. 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.
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.
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
