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
Onondaga v. New York
New York Court of Appeals upheld law that would change many county and town elections to even years to align with state and federal contests, finding it does not violate state constitutional home rule or voting rights
Center for Coalfield Justice v. Washington County Board of Elections
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held a county election board policy that provided no notice to voters whose mail-in ballots were disqualified for errors and gave the misimpression they could not vote by provisional ballot violated voters' procedural due process rights.
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
South Carolina Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions, which state courts cannot review, under the state constitution.
Commonwealth v. Council for Better Education; LaFontaine v. Council for Better Education
Kentucky Supreme Court will consider whether a law providing for public charter schools violates the state constitution's requirement that the legislature establish "an efficient system of common schools" and related provisions.
Howell v. Cooper; North Carolina Bar and Tavern Association v. Stein
The North Carolina Supreme Court held, in two cases heard together, that bar owners pleaded colorable claims that executive orders shutting down or restricting operation of their businesses violated their right to earn a living.
People v. Kardasz; People v. Martin
Will consider, in two cases argued together, whether mandatory lifetime sex offender registration and electronic monitoring violate the state's “cruel or unusual" punishment clause or the federal 8th Amendment, and whether lifetime electronic monitoring constitutes an unreasonable search under the state or federal constitution. With respect to the sex offender registry law, at issue is whether the court should extend its July 2024 holding in People v. Lymon that application of the registry requirement to non-sexual offenses is “cruel or unusual” punishment, to those convicted of sexual offenses as well.
State v. City of San Antonio
Court of Appeals blocked a city from distributing payments under a $100,000 fund created to cover reproductive healthcare costs, which may include out-of-state travel for abortion care, while a full appeal is pending. Preliminarily held the fund violates the state constitution's gift clause because sending residents to undergo procedures out of state that Texas prohibits within the state does not count as a public purpose. Although the city had not yet disbursed any money and argued it still had the option to choose not to pay for out-of-state abortion travel, the panel found it sufficiently likely such payment would occur for the dispute to be ripe.
State v. Amble
Iowa Supreme Court revisited its 2021 decision in State v. Wright that the state's search and seizure clause requires police to obtain a warrant before searching garbage placed curbside for collection, finding that subsequent enactment of a state statute providing such garbage "shall be deemed abandoned property" means a warrant is no longer constitutionally required. The majority reasoned that Wright relied on "positive law" -- a local anti-scavening ordinance prohibiting anyone but licensed trash collectors from picking up trash -- to define private property rights, and the state statute changed that positive law by preempting the local ordinance. A dissent opined that the majority's position allows legislative "end-runs" of constitutional rights and disregards an overarching reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis.
Josh Kaul v. Wisconsin State Legislature
Wisconsin Supreme Court held a law giving a legislative committee authority to approve or disprove civil settlements reached by the state justice department violates separation of powers as applied to civil enforcement actions and civil cases brought on behalf of executive agencies. Settling these types of actions is within the core power of the executive branch, as the legislature has failed to demonstrate that doing so implicates an institutional interest giving lawmakers a shared constitutional role.
State v. James Ellis
Will consider whether restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence is punishment subject to the limits on excessive fines in the federal and state constitutions and, if so, whether those clauses require sentencing courts to analyze the defendant’s ability to pay in setting the amount.
State v. Spencer
Illinois Supreme Court held that an aggregate 100-year prison sentence for a defendant who was 20 when the crimes occurred is not a de facto life sentence because a state statute makes first-degree murder defendants under 21 eligible for parole after 20 years and mandates that the reviewing board consider mitigating circumstances related to the defendant’s youth. The court further held that the the fact the sentence is not de facto life does not foreclose the defendant from bringing an as-applied challenge to his sentence under the state constitution’s “proportionate penalties” clause in a post-conviction petition.
Montana Environmental Information Center v. Office of the Governor
Montana Supreme Court held that a party who succeeds on a state constitutional “right to know” claim in a public records dispute is entitled to a presumption that they should be awarded attorneys’ fees. Two dissents opined that the holding was motivated by partisan bias.
Wyoming Education Association vs. State
Trial court found Wyoming was underfunding public schools in violation of its state constitutional duty to provide an equal opportunity for a quality education, and ordered the state to modify its funding model. The state has appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
