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
State of Washington v. Gator's Custom Guns
Washington Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld the state's ban on selling or manufacturing magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. The majority held that large-capacity magazines are “not” arms within the scope of the state or federal constitutional right to bear arms, and the ability to purchase them is not "necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm in self-defense."
LeMieux v. Evers
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held, in a divided decision, that the governor did not exceed his partial veto authority under the state constitution when he altered digits, words, and punctuation in a budget bill to extend a school funding increase from 2 to 402 years.
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 to invalidate more than 60,000 votes.
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.
State v. Waldner
Held that privacy right in the state's victims'-rights amendment (known, along with versions in other states, as "Marsy's Law") is not self-executing, but a statute providing for appeal of certain orders affecting "substantial rights" may be used by crime victims to appeal denials of motions to quash discovery to enforce that privacy right. Also held that the right to privacy in the amendment is not an absolute protection from discovery requests and must be balanced against defendants' due process rights. For a discovery request to be upheld, a defendant must establish the relevance, admissibility, and specificity of the information sought.
Montenegro v. Fontes
WIll consider whether portion of campaign-disclosure law that says rules and enforcement activity by a commission charged with implementing the law are not subject to limit by any "legislative governmental body" -- which the trial court found to violate separation of powers principles -- is severable from the rest of the law. Will also consider whether legislators have standing to claim that the law's grant of general implementing power to the commission interferes with legislative power.
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.
Planned Parenthood v. Urmanski
Will determine whether a 175-year old law, if interpreted in separate case Kaul v. Urmanski to ban abortions except to save the mother's life, violates the woman's and her physician's inherent rights to life and liberty and equal protection under the state constitution. Planned Parenthood argues that the inherent rights clause protects a person’s right to bodily integrity and autonomy, including the decision of whether and when to have a child.
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.
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.
Missouri State Conference of the NAACP v. State
Trial court upheld voter identification requirements, finding them consistent with a 2016 state constitutional amendment that a voter "may be required by general law to identify himself or herself" and not to violate the state constitutional right to vote or equal protection. The trial court determined that rational basis review is the appropriate level of scrunity, but said the law would satisfy any level.
State v. Pulizzi
Ruled that the criminal defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his curbside garbage based on the city's waste collection ordinance requiring special permission from the city for an exemption from waste collection service
