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
Access Independent Health Services v. Wrigley
North Dakota Supreme Court upheld state's abortion ban despite three of five justices concluding a health-risk exception was unconstitutionally vague, because the state constitution requires four justices to declare legislation unconstitutional
Clarke v. Town of Newburgh
New York Court of Appeals held local government could not assert state or federal equal protection challenge to the vote dilution provision of the state's Voting Rights Act
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, adopting an alternative proposed by the plaintiffs
Commonwealth v. Lee
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will decide whether mandating a life sentence, without the possibility of parole, for “felony murder” — a legal doctrine that allows someone to be prosecuted for murder for any death that occurs during the commission of a separate felony, even if the defendant never meant to kill anyone — violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s ban on “cruel” punishments or the federal Eighth Amendment.
State v. Autele
Held that trial courts have discretion to determine whether the state constitutional right to be represented by retained counsel of choice is outweighed by other considerations, including ethical requirements or the potential for undue delay and disruption of trial
Bienvenu v. Defendant 1
Vacated prior ruling and held that a statute, which retroactively revived certain prescribed child sex abuse claims for limited three-year period, did not conflict with state constitutional substantive due process protection against disturbing vested rights
Roman Realty, LLC v. The City of Morgantown
Ruled that the state constitution's takings clause does not require an eminent domain proceeding be initiated to ascertain just compensation, merely that just compensation must be paid
State v. Barr
Held that the mandatory consecutive sentence requirement in the Idaho Code did not violate the separation of powers provision of the Idaho Constitution
State ex rel. Parson v. Walker
Held that statute governing Governor's power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons placed no limit on Governor's exclusive constitutional discretion over clemency matters
State v. Tran
Ruled that the Hawaii constitutional provision allowing the legislature to define jury unanimity required for a conviction of continuous sexual assault against a minor below 14 years of age did not violate Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution
Navahine F. v. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation
State reached settlement with plaintiffs who sued over the climate impact of the state transportation system. Under settlement, Hawaii must plan and implement carbon reduction plans; fund and complete green transportation projects; establish oversight unit in the transportation department; and involve youth in the process. The trial court has approved the settlement and has jurisdiction over any disputes that arise.
Commonwealth v. Torsilieri
Held that Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act's presumption that adult sex offenders posed higher risk of recidivism did not violate due process
Bingham v. Gourley
Utah Supreme Court held that four-year statute of repose on medical malpractice claims does not violate the state constitution's open courts or "uniform operation of laws" clause or federal equal protection.
