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 February 2025.
Featured Cases
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 in invalidate more than 60,000 votes.
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.
State ex rel. Hilgers v. Evnen
Nebraska Supreme Court held that provisions of a criminal justice reform law expanding parole eligibility, including retroactively to already-sentenced offenders, do not have the effect of substituting milder punishments for the ones already imposed, so do not infringe on the Board of Pardons’ exclusive commutation power under the state constitution.
McCombie v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Refused to accept an original action by the state’s house majority leader and voters, claiming that house districts drawn in 2021 are partisan and not compact, finding the complaint untimely and barred by laches because the plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence in bringing suit. The dissenting justice said the majority was wrong to discredit the plaintiffs’ argument that they had to collect data from multiple election cycles. Because the Illinois high court has never adjudicated a state constitutional partisan gerrymandering claim before, he opined, it has not provided guidance on whether such data — which was required for federal constitutional claims until the U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) ruled such claims cannot be brought — is applicable for a state constitutional challenge.
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.
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.
People v. Eads
Michigan Court of Appeals held that a 50-year minimum sentence for a defendant convicted of second-degree murder as a juvenile is "cruel or unusual" punishment, finding that sentence constitutionally equivalent to the life-with-the-possibility-of-parole sentence the Michigan Supreme Court found "cruel or unusual" in People v. Stovall. The court also held that the defendant's sentence was disproportionate given the sentencing court's failure to consider his youth and its attendant characteristics as mitigating factors.
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.
People v. Jennings
Will consider what standard Michigan courts should adopt to determine whether prosecutorial misconduct bars retrial under the state’s double jeopardy clause. The defendant argues that the federal constitutional standard -- which requires proof that a prosecutor specifically intended to cause a mistrial -- inadequately protects the principles of double jeopardy and insufficiently deters egregious conduct, so an objective standard should apply under the Michigan Constitution.
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.
Atlantic Games, Inc. v. Georgia Lottery Corporation
Concurral to denial of certiorari by Justice Peteerson questioned whether the court should reconsider existing caselaw on the nondelegation doctrine in a different case because, in their view, it does not comport with original public meaning
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.
