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 June 2025.
Featured Cases
League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature (LWV 1)
Utah Supreme Court dismissed legislators' appeal from trial court ruling that struck the state's congressional map. Lower court said law the map was enacted under violated a fundamental right of voters to alter or reform their government — recognized by the Utah high court earlier in the case — by repealing a redistricting-reform initiative, and subsequently adopted plaintiffs' proposed alternative map
Commonwealth v. Council for Better Education; LaFontaine v. Council for Better Education
Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a law providing for charter schools funds education outside the “system of common schools,” in violation of clauses requiring the legislature to establish such a system and voters to approve such funding
McDougle v. Nardo
Virginia Supreme Court permitted legislature's proposed amendment to redraw the state’s congressional map to proceed to a vote, while it considers appeal of trial court decision finding the legislative process unconstitutional
State ex rel. Brooks v. Evnen
The Nebraska Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a proposed abortion-rights amendment could go before voters, rejecting claims that it violated the subject-subject rule and was so vague that it would mislead voters
Coleman v. Ashcroft
The Missouri Supreme Court rejected claims that Amendment 3, a ballot measure that would protect abortion access until viability, violated the single-subject rule and state election law by failing to list all the existing laws that its passage would repeal. The ruling ensured that Amendment 3 would remain on the ballot.
Layla H v. Virginia
Plaintiffs claim that state’s practice of approving permits for fossil-fuel infrastructure violates substantive due process and public trust rights to natural resources, protected by the state constitution. They claim such practice infringes these rights by contributing to greenhouse-gas pollution and climate change. A trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed on the basis that the plaintiffs lack standing. Finding that there was no reversible error, the Virginia Supreme Court declined to grant review of the appellate court decision.
Eidson v. South Carolina Department of Education
Held that state program providing taxpayer-funded education accounts to low-income families cannot be allocated by parents to private school tuition because doing so violates a state constitutional ban on use of public funds for the “direct benefit” of private educational institutions.
Acorn International v. State
Held that the Secretary of State's response to ACORN International's public records request asking for documentation of the actual costs for a yearly subscription to state voter database did not violate organization's constitutional right to know
Oberholzer v. Galapo
Held that neighbors' anti-racist signs did not intolerably intrude on homeowners' substantial privacy interests, and thus constitutional free-speech protections did not permit trial court to enjoin continued display of the signs
Commonwealth v. Thompson
Dissent would have held that inventory searches are unconstitutional under art. 1 sec. 8 of the Pennsylvania constitution, and therefore reversed the defendant's judgment on appeal
Ohio v. Isaiah Morris
Court will review court of appeals's decision finding that the state constitutional right to counsel is more protective than the 6th Amendment and requires a defendant, who has been formally charged and secured an attorney, to consult with counsel before any waiver of his right to have an attorney present during a police interrogation can be valid.
Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists
Held that statutes requiring the patient to obtain expert testimony to establish the requisite standard of care in the patient's negligence action did not violate the anti-abrogation clause, despite the patient's allegations that no expert would testify
State v. Chadwick
Held that in multiple acts case when counts charged are identical, the jury must be specifically instructed that it must be unanimous regarding both the conduct supporting conviction on each count and the defendant's guilt
