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
State of Washington v. Gator's Custom Guns
Washington Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld under the state and federal right to bear arms the state's ban on selling or manufacturing magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.
Ellutzi v. Regents of the University of California
Two students and a professor allege university violated their state and federal constitutional rights to due process, speech, and assembly by summarily banning them from campus after they failed to disperse when the university deployed law enforcement to dismantle a "Gaza Solidarity Encampment." The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, citing "disputed evidence."
State v. Pulizzi
Ruled that the criminal defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his curbside garbage based on the city's waste collection ordinance requiring special permission from the city for an exemption from waste collection service
Richard Michael Fay v. David Pedro
Oregon trial court found the corrections department had unconstitutionally inflicted cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessary rigor by failing to provide adequate medical treatment and diagnosis to an inmate for serious injuries sustained in prison, and ordered specific medical care to be provided.
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
Oregon Supreme Court considered whether a state constitutional clause providing that inmates should work or engage in on-the-job training while in custody but have no “legally enforceable right” to a job, training, or compensation, precludes an inmate who does not get such assignments from suing for lost wages. The court held the clause is not a barrier to pleading a claim for economic damages based on lost future income.
Mitchell v. University of North Carolina Board of Governors
North Carolina Supreme Court held that state courts interpreting state administrative regulations must employ de novo review and overruled any intermediate decision requiring deference to an agency's interpretation of its rules.
Cross v. State
Affirmed a lower court's preliminary injunction against Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Applying strict scrutiny, the state high court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the ban likely violates the state constitution's express right to privacy.
Murray v. Dalton (In re Doe)
Held that Idaho’s statutes governing powers and duties of guardianship and governing resignation, removal, modification, or termination proceedings for guardians of minors, were rationally related to legitimate government interest in the minor’s safety and best interests and, thus, were not unconstitutionally broad or vague in violation of due process
In re S.M.
Held that an indigent parent or custodial respondent in an abuse and neglect case has a right to appointed counsel at all stages of the proceedings, but they may elect to continue self-represented upon a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel
Nevada Policy Research Institute v. Miller
Held that respondents' dual service as legislators and employees of state or local government did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers
