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.
State ex rel. Elizabeth Constance v. Evnen
Held that voter ballot initiative, which proposed to amend the state constitution to limit abortion in the second and third trimesters, did not violate the single subject rule
Richard v. Governor
Ruled that the state constitutional provision governing choice of governor, council, and senators did not mandate that votes must be counted by hand
Ex parte Charette
Held that the exhaustion of administrative remedies in the Texas Ethics Commission is a prerequisite to bringing criminal charges against a political candidate for campaign-law violations
People v. Lewis
Held that the county court is not required to grant appeal bond to a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor and found to pose a danger to the community, but is, upon request, required to stay the execution of defendant's sentence pending appeal to the district court
Commonwealth v. Dilworth
Held that the court will apply a less rigorous standard when evaluating equal protection claims in the context of alleged discriminatory policing during the investigatory phase of a case
Hild, Administration of the Estate of Boldman v. Samaritan Health Partners
Held that when jurors are presented with interrogatories that require them to separately decide the elements of a negligence claim, the same-juror rule applies, requiring the same three-fourths of jurors to agree on all questions comprising the verdict slip
State v. Miller
Held that the Iowa Constitution’s cruel and unusual punishment clause does not prohibit sentencing juvenile offenders to a minimum prison term before they are eligible for parole and rejected the defendant’s argument that the same clause bars such a sentence unless there is expert testimony concerning defendants’ “youthful characteristics"
State ex rel. Spung v. Evnen
Ordered election officials to implement immediately a 2024 law that reinstated voting rights to those convicted of a felony upon completion of their sentence, meaning affected people can now register to vote for November’s election. The secretary of state, based on an advisory opinion from the state attorney general calling the law unconstitutional, had directed election officials to stop registering people with a felony conviction who had not received a pardon.
In re Tom Malinowski
Appellants claim that state's ban on fusion voting violates rights to vote, to free speech and political association, to equal protection, and to assemble
Layla H v. Virginia
Plaintiffs claim that state’s practice of approving permits for fossil-fuel infrastructure violates substantive due process and public trust rights to natural resources, protected by the state constitution. They claim such practice infringes these rights by contributing to greenhouse-gas pollution and climate change. A trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed on the basis that the plaintiffs lack standing. Finding that there was no reversible error, the Virginia Supreme Court declined to grant review of the appellate court decision.
