The US Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a challenge by the state of Alabama to a judicial finding that a death row inmate convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible under the US Constitution for the death penalty.
Unusual Procedural Move
In a highly unusual move, the court issued a single-sentence, unsigned order dismissing Alabama's petition for review in Hamm v. Smith without deciding it. This effectively undid its earlier decision to take up an appeal by state officials regarding the method used by a lower court to determine that Joseph Clifton Smith was intellectually disabled and therefore could not be executed.
Key Issues at Stake
At issue were two main questions: how to assess multiple IQ scores that fall above and below the cutoff for execution, and how far courts should go in assessing additional evidence of mental capacity beyond IQ. Had the court sided with Alabama, it could have paved the way for a significant increase in the number of people with intellectual disabilities—a group overrepresented on death row—who are executed.
After hearing arguments in December, the majority ruled on procedural grounds that it should not have accepted the case, leaving in place the lower court ruling blocking Smith's execution. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred, while conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Alito's dissent in part.
Concurring Opinion
Sotomayor wrote in a concurring opinion that the lower court's determination "that Smith has significantly subaverage intellectual functioning and is intellectually disabled" was "correct, or at least, very plausible." She added, "The court is not equipped to provide any meaningful guidance on how courts should assess multiple IQ scores. That is because the differences between methods used to assess multiple IQ scores raise complicated questions on which even experts may disagree." She noted that if a conflict emerges among states or lower courts, it may be appropriate for the Supreme Court to weigh in with more specific guidance.
Legal Background
Because of a major 2002 Supreme Court precedent that executing an intellectually disabled person violates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishment," Alabama could not execute Smith. However, that landmark ruling left it to the states to set standards for eligibility. Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of "adaptive deficits."
Smith's Case
Smith's five IQ scores, which measure learning, reasoning, and problem-solving, range from 78 to 72—all around the bottom fifth percentile of the population. In Alabama, someone is ineligible for execution if they have an IQ at or below 70 and can demonstrate significant deficits in everyday skills that occurred before age 18. Many other states have similar standards.
A federal judge in the 11th Circuit noted that Smith's lowest score could be as low as 69, given the standard error of measurement, and allowed him to present additional evidence of his mental capacity. The judge found that Smith had significant deficits in adaptive behaviors, with manifestation from an early age—including social and interpersonal skills, independent living, and schooling. Smith's school records showed he was classified as "educable mentally retarded" in seventh grade, an outdated term for mild intellectual disability. The court also considered other factors, such as his failure to maintain a bank account and difficulties purchasing groceries.
The court concluded that "[a] person with an IQ score above 70 may have such severe adaptive behavior problems ... that the person's actual functioning is comparable to that of individuals with a lower IQ score," and thus Smith could not be sentenced to death. An appeals court upheld that ruling, contending the decision was made using a holistic approach.
State's Objections
Alabama disagreed with the lower court's decision, arguing it placed too much weight on Smith's lowest IQ score, which only placed him below the cutoff when considering the margin of error. Alabama twice appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that more weight should have been placed on the cumulative IQ scores that placed him above the cutoff. The state was backed by the Trump administration, which lifted a moratorium on the federal death penalty.
