The Supreme Court’s decision on Hamm v. Smith could redefine how intellectual disability is assessed in death penalty cases, possibly reshaping the future of the Eighth Amendment’s protections.
Story Overview
- The Supreme Court is reviewing whether Alabama’s IQ-centric approach to intellectual disability in death penalty cases is constitutional.
- The case challenges the precedent set by Atkins, Hall, and Moore, which requires states to follow clinical standards.
- Advocates warn that a ruling favoring Alabama could lead to more executions of individuals with intellectual disabilities.
- The decision could have a nationwide impact on death penalty practices and Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.
Alabama’s Legal Framework Under Scrutiny
Alabama courts have rejected claims of intellectual disability by focusing heavily on IQ scores, a method criticized for ignoring the broader clinical picture. This approach diverges from precedents like Atkins v. Virginia, which emphasized the need for states to align with professional consensus on intellectual disability.
In Hamm v. Smith, the petitioner argues that Alabama’s framework violates the Eighth Amendment by not adequately considering adaptive functioning deficits. Disability advocates fear that upholding Alabama’s model could set a dangerous precedent.
Historical Context and Legal Precedents
The journey to this legal crossroads began with Atkins v. Virginia in 2002, which barred the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities. However, it left the specifics of defining intellectual disability to the states, leading to varied interpretations.
Subsequent rulings in Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas further clarified that states must consider clinical standards beyond mere IQ scores, emphasizing adaptive functioning and professional diagnostic criteria.
National Implications and Stakeholder Concerns
The decision in Hamm v. Smith holds significant implications for death penalty practices across the United States. A ruling in favor of Alabama could embolden other states to adopt similar restrictive criteria, potentially increasing the risk of executing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Supreme Court Grapples With Death Penalty Case on Intellectual Disability https://t.co/rOeviszJcy
The case involves an Alabama man who challenged his death sentence after a murder conviction because of his varying results in a series of I.Q. tests.
— Sean Graf (@seangraf) December 11, 2025
Disability and civil rights organizations, including The Arc and the AAIDD, stress that intellectual disability should be assessed holistically. They argue that prioritizing IQ scores over comprehensive clinical evaluations undermines constitutional protections and risks unjust outcomes.
The Supreme Court’s Role and Potential Outcomes
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority faces a pivotal decision: whether to uphold the established protections under Atkins, Hall, and Moore or allow states more leeway in defining intellectual disability. The outcome could either reinforce or weaken two decades of jurisprudence.
For individuals on death row with intellectual disabilities, the stakes are high. A ruling that mandates adherence to clinical standards could save lives and ensure fairer assessments. Conversely, a decision favoring Alabama’s framework could lead to more executions under disputed criteria.
