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
People v. Taylor; People v. Czarnecki
Michigan Supreme Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences violate the state constitution’s protection against “cruel or unusual” punishment for anyone under age 21 at the time of the offense. The decision extends the court’s 2022 ruling in People v. Parks that such sentences are unconstitutional for those 18 or under.
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.
N'Da v. Hybl
Nebraska Supreme Court held that statutory requirement that applicant seeking certificate to provide nonemergency medical transport must show the proposed service is required by "public convenience and necessity" does not facially violate state constitutional due process or bans on "special laws" or laws granting "special privileges and immunities." Also held that that the Nebraska Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses are coextensive with their federal equivalents, so federal rational basis review applies to substantive due process challenges to economic regulations, not the heightened standard the court had applied in a line of cases from the early 20th century.
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.
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
Richard Michael Fay vs 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.
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.
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.
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.
In re Courtney Rae Hudson v. Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts
Relying on the state high court's general superintending control over all state courts, vacated a circuit court preliminary injunction that had prevented the administrative office of the courts and the office of professional conduct from complying with a FOIA request for certain communications with the state supreme court chief justice. The state high court also referred the chief justice and her attorney, who had sought the injunction, to state ethics bodies.
SisterSong v. Georgia
Plaintiffs claim that abortion ban violates the state constitution’s right to liberty and privacy and guarantee of equal protection
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."
League of Women Voters of Missouri v. State
Trial court permanently enjoined provisions restricting voter registration and absentee ballot solicitation activities, finding that they burden core political speech, constitute content- and viewpoint-discrimination, and are overbroad, in violation of state constitutional speech protections. The court also held that the provisions violate civic engagement groups' state constitutional right to associate and are unconstitutionally vague. The court determined that because the laws restrict election-related speech, not the mechanics of elections, strict scrutiny review applies.
