The United States Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed 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 for execution under the US Constitution. In an unusual move, the court issued a single-sentence, unsigned order dismissing Alabama's petition for review in Hamm v Smith without deciding the case, effectively reversing its earlier decision to hear the appeal.
Background of the Case
At issue was how to evaluate multiple IQ scores that fall both above and below the cutoff for execution, and the extent to which courts should consider additional evidence of mental capacity beyond IQ scores. Had the Supreme Court sided with Alabama, it could have paved the way for a significant increase in the number of intellectually disabled individuals on death row who are executed, a group already overrepresented in capital punishment cases.
After hearing arguments in December, the majority ruled on procedural grounds that it should not have accepted the case of Joseph Clifton Smith, who was convicted of capital murder. The ruling leaves in place the lower court decision blocking his execution.
Judicial Opinions
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the decision to dismiss the case, while conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined part of Alito's dissent.
Justice 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."
Legal Precedents
Due to a landmark 2002 Supreme Court precedent that executing an intellectually disabled person violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, Alabama could not execute Smith. However, that ruling left it to individual states to set standards for determining intellectual disability. Subsequent Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ scores near 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of adaptive deficits.
Smith's five IQ scores ranged from 78 to 72, all around the bottom fifth percentile of the population. In Alabama, a person 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.
Evidence of Intellectual Disability
A federal judge in the 11th Circuit noted that Smith's lowest score could be as low as 69 when considering the standard error of measurement and allowed him to present additional evidence of mental capacity. The judge found that Smith had significant deficits in adaptive behaviors, including social and interpersonal skills, independent living, and schooling. School records showed that Smith was classified as "educable mentally retarded" in seventh grade, an outdated term for mild intellectual disability. The court also considered 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 therefore Smith could not be sentenced to death. An appeals court upheld this ruling, stating that the decision was made using a holistic approach.
Alabama's Challenge
Alabama disagreed with the lower court's decision, arguing that too much weight was placed on Smith's lowest IQ score, which only fell below the cutoff when considering the margin of error. The state twice appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that more weight should have been given to the cumulative IQ scores that placed him above the cutoff. The state was backed by the Trump administration, which had lifted a moratorium on the federal death penalty.
Justice Sotomayor noted that if a conflict among states or lower courts emerges and a case properly presents the issue, it may be appropriate for the Supreme Court to provide more specific guidance on the permissible methods for analyzing multiple IQ scores.
