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 March 2025.
Featured Cases
Kaul v. Urmanski
Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an 1849 law, which a local prosecutor had claimed was a near-total abortion ban, is impliedly repealed as to abortion by subsequent legislation and does not ban the procedure in the state.
Contoocook Valley School District v. New Hampshire
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the state's existing education funding law is constitutionally inadequate and $7,356.01 per pupil as a minimum constitutional guidepost for the legislature, but reversed the trial court's injunction directing the state immediately to pay that amount because the court failed to give adequate weight to separation of powers concerns.
Republican National Committee v. Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc; Georgia v. Eternal Vigilance Action
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled invalid under state nondelegation principles four of seven rules passed by the Georgia State Election board, while upholding one rule. The court did not decide the validity of two other rules, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the provisions.
Care and Prevention of Eve
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that department of children and families violated the state constitution's free exercise of religion protection when it vaccinated a child temporarily in its custody over the religious objections of her parents. Parents who have temporarily lost custody of their children retain a residual right to direct their religious upbringing, and the state must demonstrate that allowing the child to remain unvaccinated would substantially hinder the department’s compelling interest in the vaccination.
Perez v. City of San Antonio
Texas Supreme Court held that a 2021 amendment, which bans the state and localities from prohibiting or limiting religious services, is absolute and categorical when it applies, meaning it forbids limitations on religious services regardless of the government's interest or how tailored the limitation is to that interest. The court also held, however, that the scope of the clause's applicability is not unlimited and does not extend to the government’s preservation and management of publicly owned lands.
State v. Davieontray Breax
Louisiana Supreme Court held that the state constitution bars prosecutors from joining capital charges with other felony charges in one indictment.
J.F. v. St. Vincent Hospital
Indiana Supreme Court established a new approach to mootness for the state constitutional and statutory right to appeal court-ordered temporary involuntary commitments confining individuals to mental health treatment facilities, holding that expiration of such an order generally will not bar appeal. Expiration will only moot an appeal if the appellee can show the absence of any collateral consequence from the temporary commitment order.
Republican National Committee v. Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc; Georgia v. Eternal Vigilance Action
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled invalid under state nondelegation principles four of seven rules passed by the Georgia State Election board, while upholding one rule. The court did not decide the validity of two other rules, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the provisions.
State v. Adrian Fernandez
The Oregon Supreme Court will consider whether a law that restricts appellate courts’ authority to review a sentence that falls within the range set in guidelines by the state criminal justice commission precludes appellate review of a state constitutional challenge to that sentence. In an amicus brief, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that interpreting the law to preclude such appellate review would violate separation of powers and the state constitution's equality guarantee.
Stary v. Ethridge
Texas Supreme Court held that due process requires a heightened evidentiary standard to support a protective order prohibitng contact between a parent and child for longer than two years, likening such an order to a government's termination of parental rights. Instead of the ordinary civil preponderance of the evidence standard, a court must find the statutory requirements for such an order by clear and convincing evidence and must consider the best interests of the child.
Rand v. New Hampshire
New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed trial court and held that statewide property tax scheme designed to pay for schools that allows a locality to retain any tax revenue in excess of what the district needs to fund an adequate education does not not violate a state constitutional clause empowering the legislature to levy "proportional" taxes on all New Hampshire residents. Also held that the state tax agency’s practice of setting negative local tax rates in unincorporated places with minimal or no education costs to offset nearly or completely the statewide rate does violate that clause.
Opternative, Inc. v. South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners
Will consider whether a law that prevents telehealth companies from providing online vision tests for glasses and contact prescriptions in the state violates the businesses’ equal protection and due process rights under the South Carolina Constitution.
Commonwealth v. Govan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that imposition of GPS monitoring as a condition of pretrial release for a defendant whose conduct directly implicated state interests in protecting alleged crime and domestic violence victims and potential witnesses was constitutional under MA’s search and seizure clause. The court also held that an officer’s subsequent retrieval and review of an hour of defendant’s GPS location data in connection with investigating a new crime was not a search for state constitutional purposes because the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the accessed information.
