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
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.
Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost
Filed, by abortion providers, a lawsuit claiming the state’s abortion restrictions, including a 24-hour waiting period to receive abortion care, violate the state constitution’s right to reproductive freedom.
In Re the State of Texas
The State of Texas requested that a Harris County guaranteed income program in that would use federal funds to disburse $500 cash payments (monthly, for 18 months) to 2,000 low-income county residents be paused as a lawsuit over the program proceeds in the trial court. The Texas Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction.
Johnson v. Wyoming
Plaintiffs claim that abortion ban violates the fundamental right to be left alone by government as guaranteed by several rights enshrined in the state constitution
In re Covid-related Restrictions on Religious Services
Delaware Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of clergy members’ challenge to restrictions on religious gatherings during the Covid-19 pandemic, finding plaintiffs did not establish irreparable harm for injunctive relief or standing for their declaratory claim, and the governor was immune from the damages claim.
Kanahele v. State
Held that the state's transfer of control over a mountain access road constituted a breach of its constitutional duty to carry out the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
State of Washington v. Luthi
Held that an in-court holding cell, even during pretrial hearings when a jury is not present, undermines the presumption of innocence, limits defendants’ ability to confer confidentially with counsel, and is contrary to the “formal dignity” of the courtroom and treating defendants’ respectfully.
