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 January 2025.
Featured Cases
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.
SisterSong v. Georgia
Plaintiffs claim that abortion ban violates the state constitution’s right to liberty and privacy and guarantee of equal protection
Texas v. Margaret Daley Carpenter
Texas’s attorney general sued a New York doctor for mailing abortion-including drugs to a woman in Texas, claiming she practiced medicine in Texas without a Texas license and improperly aided an abortion. After the doctor did not respond to the complaint, a Texas trial court issued a default judgment enjoining her from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to state residents and imposing $100,000 in civil penalties, as sought by the attorney general.
People v. Watkins
Held that defense counsel's decision to forgo a request for a cross-racial identification charge did not constitute an “egregious” single error that rose to level of constitutionally ineffective assistance
Fearrington v. City of Greenville
Ruled that an Act governing red light cameras in a city did not violate the Fines and Forfeitures Clause of the North Carolina Constitution
State v. Brown
Held that the defendant had a legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy when he spoke with his mother in police station interview room under both the Fourth Amendment and Rhode Island's right against self-incrimination
Independent School District No. 12 v. State of Oklahoma
Ruled in a unanimous decision, against the state board and instructed it to dismiss the enforcement proceedings it brought against a district school library over certain books that allegedly violated new state board rules against sexualized content.
Texas Department of Transportation v. Self
Held that the government must pay compensation to the landowners when it intentionally destroys private property for public use, even when it acted with the mistaken belief that it has a legal right to do so
Thurston v. The League of Women Voters of Arkansas
Held that Acts placing restrictions on absentee ballots and requiring valid photographic identification to cast a ballot did not clearly violate state constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection and free and equal elections
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt
Unanimously denied challenge to the law restoring voting rights to non-incarcerated individuals convicted of felonies, on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing
Albence v. Mennella
The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed for lack of standing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a 2019 law permitting early in-person voting “at least 10 days before an election," and a 2010 statute allowing some voters who are already eligible to vote absentee to apply for permanent absentee status.
Schools Over Stadiums v. Thompson
Held that a petition seeking to place a referendum on the ballot to strike sections of a bill authorizing the financing and construction of a Major League Baseball stadium in the county violated the constitution's full-text requirement because it did not include the entirety of the bill's language
Commonwealth v. Hastings
Ruled that an indigent defendant's motion for funds to retain an expert for his parole hearing was excepted from indigency statute's restrictions because it implicated his State constitutional right to reasonable disability accommodations in parole proceedings
