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 January 2025.
Featured Cases
Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs
Washington Supreme Court held requirement that election workers verify voter signatures on mail ballots, when coupled with the state’s recently expanded process for notifying voters and providing an opportunity to cure when a signature mismatch is identified, does not facially violate the state constitution’s free and equal elections, privileges and immunities, or due process clause.
SisterSong v. Georgia
Plaintiffs claim that abortion ban violates the state constitution’s right to liberty and privacy and guarantee of equal protection
Griffin v. State Board of Elections
A candidate for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, who lost by over 700 votes, claims that the state board of elections followed an incorrect process for registering voters and seeks in invalidate more than 60,000 votes.
In re Tom Malinowski
Appellants claim that state's ban on fusion voting violates rights to vote, to free speech and political association, to equal protection, and to assemble
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.
Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
Reversed trial court ruling that a city's use of a mobile voting truck for in-person absentee voting violates state statutes, finding that the voter plaintiff lacked standing. The plaintiff did not show that he was "aggrieved" by the election commission's decision permitting the voting truck, as required by state law, as he did not allege that he was personally affected.
O’Neil v. Gianforte
Held that the state constitution’s protection of the public’s “right to know” allows for a limited gubernatorial privilege exception if the governor meets the “high bar of demonstrating that the information is essential to carrying out a constitutional duty and that its disclosure would chill future candor.” Also held that the process for determining whether a particular document otherwise subject to the "right to know" may be shielded by gubernatorial privilege should be the same as for other "candor privileges" (e.g., attorney-client, doctor-patient), including in camera review by the trial court to determine the proper scope. Remanded to the district court to conduct such review with respect to the requested agency documents.
SisterSong v. Georgia
Plaintiffs claim that abortion ban violates the state constitution’s right to liberty and privacy and guarantee of equal protection
City of Fargo v. State
Held that a 2023 statute barring localities from enacting ordinances related to the purchase, sale, or possession of firearms and ammunitions that are more restrictive than state law preempted the city of Fargo’s limits on such sales and did not violate state constitutional “home rule” clauses as applied to Fargo’s restrictions.
Texas v. Margaret Daley Carpenter
Texas’s attorney general is suing a New York doctor for mailing abortion-including drugs to a woman in Texas, claiming she practiced medicine in Texas without a Texas license and improperly aided an abortion. The attorney general seeks to bar her from doing so again and asks for at least $100,000 in damages.
