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 November 2024.
Featured Cases
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.
Evers v. Marklein
Court will decide whether a legislative committee’s vetoes of an agency rule that would ban the practice of “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ patients violates the separation of powers principles in the Wisconsin Constitution.
In an earlier installment of the case, the court ruled 6–1 that the law permitting the effective legislative veto of agency land-conservation expenditures violated the executive branch’s “core power” to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” While the Wisconsin Constitution gives the legislature authority to create an agency, define its parameters, and appropriate funds for it, the power to spend those funds in accordance with legislation lies solely with the executive, the court said.
Held v. Montana
Held that Montana’s policy of excluding greenhouse gas emissions and related climate impacts from environmental reviews of fossil fuel projects violated the state constitution’s guarantee of a clean and healthful environment.
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. Vasquez
In response to certified questions from the state intermediate appellate court, held that a trial court may, of its own accord without a defense motion, order a hearing as to whether evidence should be suppressed. The questions arose after a trial judge noticed a pattern of warrantless searches and seizures in her docket and set suppression hearings in 30 cases, ultimately supressing evidence in 6 cases after the prosecution chose to dismiss 13.
Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission
Court will consider controversial new boundaries for municipal election districts redrawn after the 2020 census revealed a significant population disparity between the most and least populous wards, including whether these allegations amount to valid claims under New Jersey’s equal protection clause, civil rights law, and a statute requiring municipal wards to be “compact.”
An intermediate appellate court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that equal protection and “compactness” — a term not defined in the law or previous published decisions — require maintaining “communities of interest” and historic neighborhoods.
State v. Velasquez
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that suppression of evidence as a remedy did not apply to officers' violation of Oklahoma's "knock and announce" requirement for executing a search warrant, and reaffirmed that the state's search and seizure clause is substantively "identical" to the Fourth Amendment.
Perez v. City of San Antonio
Will consider whether a 2021 amendment, which bans the state and localities from prohibiting or limiting religious services, imposes a categorical ban on any limitation of a religious service regardless of the form taken or the government’s interest in the limitation.
Elliott v. City of College Station
State supreme court will determine if courts can resolve whether the state constitution’s clause preserving a “republican form of government” protects citizens from being subject to city regulations when they cannot vote in city elections.
Gotay v. Creen
Will consider whether a child injured in foster care has a claim for violation of a clearly-established due process right to a "safe living environment" because of the special relationship between the state and the child, that precludes qualified immunity against state-employed social workers.
In Re Application for Correction of Birth Record of Hailey Emmeline Adelaide
Court was unable to form a majority on the merits, which had the effect of leaving undisturbed lower court rulings denying a transgender woman’s request to change the sex marker on her birth certificate.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina
Cakeshop owner refused to make blue and pink cake to celebrate prospective customer’s gender transition, citing free speech and free religious exercise rights. Colorado appellate court ruled the refusal violated state anti-discrimination laws. Colorado Supreme Court vacated that opinion on procedural grounds without addressing the merits of the free speech or free religion claims.
