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 October 2025.
Featured Cases
Equal Ground Education Fund v. Byrd; Vaccari v. Byrd; Common Cause v. DeSantis
Florida Supreme Court denied petition seeking to halt use of the state's new congressional map while consolidated challenges to the map under the state's Fair Districts Amendment proceed. An appellate court is reviewing a trial court's denial of a temporary injunction
NAACP v. Tennessee
Tennessee lower court dismissed challenge to the state's mid-decade congressional redistricting, which claimed the legislature did not have authority to alter state laws to allow the redistrictring because those alterations were not specifically included in the governor's proclamation calling the session
McDougle v. Scott
Virginia Supreme Court, in a split decision, nullified a constitutional amendment approved by voters that would have allowed the state's congressional districts to be redrawn, finding the legislative process used for the amendment violated the state constitution
McCombie v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Refused to accept an original action by the state’s house majority leader and voters, claiming that house districts drawn in 2021 are partisan and not compact, finding the complaint untimely and barred by laches because the plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence in bringing suit. The dissenting justice said the majority was wrong to discredit the plaintiffs’ argument that they had to collect data from multiple election cycles. Because the Illinois high court has never adjudicated a state constitutional partisan gerrymandering claim before, he opined, it has not provided guidance on whether such data — which was required for federal constitutional claims until the U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) ruled such claims cannot be brought — is applicable for a state constitutional challenge.
State v. Maestas
Held that only fees collected, not fines imposed, by the judicial department are subject to the limitations of Article VI, Section 30 of the New Mexico Constitution and a punitive contempt fee payable to a third party did not violate the provision
In re Doe
Held that the state Board of Medicine did not violate a physician's due process rights when it temporarily suspended his license after finding, ex parte at a regularly scheduled hearing, that there were sufficient facts to prove that he posed an imminent danger to life or health
People v. Taylor; People v. Czarnecki
Michigan Supreme Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences violate the state constitution’s protection against “cruel or unusual” punishment for anyone under age 21 at the time of the offense. The decision extends the court’s 2022 ruling in People v. Parks that such sentences are unconstitutional for those 18 or under.
State v. Dias
Held that the Georgia Supreme Court had previously only ruled that the state constitution's right against self-incrimination precluded admission of a suspect's right to consent to a breath test and had never ruled that drawing someone’s blood implicated the right against compelled self-incrimination
Boline v. JKC Trucking
Held that impecuniosity following an award of sanctions did not violate the open courts provision of state constitution, which guarantees a right to access state courts
N'Da v. Hybl
Nebraska Supreme Court held that statutory requirement that applicant seeking certificate to provide nonemergency medical transport must show the proposed service is required by "public convenience and necessity" does not facially violate state constitutional due process or bans on "special laws" or laws granting "special privileges and immunities." Also held that that the Nebraska Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses are coextensive with their federal equivalents, so federal rational basis review applies to substantive due process challenges to economic regulations, not the heightened standard the court had applied in a line of cases from the early 20th century.
State v. Mercedes
Held that officers were not required to administer warnings pursuant to article I section 7 of the Washington constitution as interpreted by prior caselaw -- informing individuals of their right to refuse, limit, or revoke consent -- prior to the warrantless consensual entries onto the defendant's outdoor property for investigative purposes
Simon v. Demuth
Ruled that the quorum clause in Article IV, Section 13, of the Minnesota Constitution requires a majority of the total number of seats of which each house may consist to constitute a quorum, without reference to vacancies
Gonzales v. Markland
Held that the use of a jury district for manslaughter trial comprised of two counties did not violate the “county or district” terminology of art. 6, § 7 of the South Dakota Constitution, granting the right to a trial by a “jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed”
