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.
Reuss v. Arizona
Healthcare providers seek to block enforcement of Arizona's 15-week abortion ban on the basis that it violates a state constitutional amendment passed in November 2024 that establishes a fundamental right to pre-viability abortion. On plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the state did not contest, the trial court permanently blocked the ban.
In re Texas House of Representatives
Held that separation-of-powers principles prevent the Texas legislature from using its subpoena power to halt a long-scheduled execution.
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.
People v. Lopez
Held that a defendant seeking to establish a violation of their constitutional right to conflict-free counsel is required to show both a conflict of interest and an adverse effect resulting from that conflict
People v. Czarnecki
Defendant argues that mandatory life-without-parole sentences constitute unconstitutional cruel punishment under the Michigan Constitution for those who were 19 at the time of commission of a crime. A 2022 court ruling held such sentences were unconstitutional for those 18-years-old and younger.
State v. Vasquez
In response to certified questions from the state intermediate appellate court, held that a trial court may, of its own accord without a defense motion, order a hearing as to whether evidence should be suppressed. The questions arose after a trial judge noticed a pattern of warrantless searches and seizures in her docket and set suppression hearings in 30 cases, ultimately supressing evidence in 6 cases after the prosecution chose to dismiss 13.
Perez v. City of San Antonio
Will consider whether a 2021 amendment, which bans the state and localities from prohibiting or limiting religious services, imposes a categorical ban on any limitation of a religious service regardless of the form taken or the government’s interest in the limitation.
Webster v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
Held that a disciplinary complaint collaterally accusing the first-assistant state attorney general of making misrepresentations in a petition filed in the U.S. Supreme Court alleging 2020 election “irregularities” violated separation-of-powers principles. While the judicial branch (and the lawyer discipline commission derivatively) has the power to enforce compliance with conduct rules, the attorney general (and his first assistant derivatively) has exclusive authority to assess the propriety of filing suit and of "the representations forming the basis of the petitions that he files." If the contents of those pleadings are objectionable, permitting the court to which the pleadings are presented to scrutinize the contents and discipline the attorney general's office "wholly accommodates the legitimate interests of all branches of government." But a disciplinary complaint arising outside the litigation in which the challenged statements were made, "improperly invade[s] the executive branch's prerogatives and risk[s] the politicization and thus the independence of the judiciary."
