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.
Silver State Hope Fund v. Nevada Department of Health and Human Services
Lower court held that Nevada’s restrictions on Medicaid coverage for abortion violated the state’s equal rights amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex and that, at minimum, strict scrutiny review applies to sex-based classifications under the amendment. The state did not appeal the trial court’s ruling.
Doe v. Minnesota
Left in place a lower court order blocking abortion restrictions relating to mandated physician care, hospitalization, criminalization, parental notification, and informed consent for violating the state constitution
T.F. and B.F. v. Kettle Moraine School District
Trial court held that district's policy of permitting and affirming student requests to transition to a different gender identity at school, without parental consent, violates parents' fundamental due process right to make healthcare decisions for their children. Court relied on expert testimony that living a "double life" with different gender identities at home and at school is "'inherently psychologically unhealthy'" for children.
Sellers v. People
The Colorado Supreme Court rejected claims that the life-without-parole sentence of a man convicted of felony murder violated the federal Eighth Amendment or Colorado's constitutional cognate
Jacobs v. City of Columbia Heights
Held that a recall petition failed to allege the necessary grounds for a recall election under the Minnesota Constitution
Pima County. v. State
Held that taxes levied to pay for desegregation expenses, which are subject to the Arizona Constitution's one percent limit on residential property taxes, are not "primary property taxes"
Wygant v. Lee
The Tennessee Supreme Court will consider a lawsuit brought by voters challenging state house districts passed by the legislature in 2022. The plaintiffs contend that the districts violate a state constitutional provision barring districts from dividing counties. The defendants argue that the court does not have the power to resolve the claims because such challenges are purely political questions to be left to the legislature.
People v. Loew
Held that a presiding judge’s ex parte communications to the prosecutor did not violate defendant's constitutional rights
Tatum v. Commissioner of Corrections
Held that a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure applies retroactively under certain conditions and principles regarding the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence apply retroactively
State v. Diole
Held that subjecting incompetent defendants to a determination of whether they committed the acts charged without a jury trial, the protections of medical privilege, and the safeguards of the rules of evidence did not violate due process and equal protection
