Supreme Court Signals Narrow Opening in Challenge to Alabama Death Sentence

Since the Republican Party secured a 6-3 conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court in late 2020, the Court has overturned major precedents on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and religious exemptions to generally applicable laws. But Wednesday’s oral argument in Hamm v. Smith — a case about whether Alabama may execute a man who claims an intellectual disability — suggested justices may take a far more incremental approach when it comes to Eighth Amendment limits on punishment.

What the Case Is About

Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama death-row inmate, argues that executing him would violate Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Supreme Court decision that bars the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. Two lower federal courts concluded Smith is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under Atkins.

Why the Case Is Close

Smith’s claim is borderline. Clinical practice typically treats an IQ of about 70 or below as indicative of intellectual disability, but test manuals caution that IQ scores have a margin of error and that significant deficits in adaptive functioning can support a diagnosis even when IQ scores exceed the 70 threshold.

Smith has taken five IQ tests and scored: 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74. Under Moore v. Texas (2017), courts must consider additional evidence of intellectual disability when a defendant’s IQ, adjusted for the test’s standard error, falls within the clinically established range for intellectual-functioning deficits.

What Happened at Oral Argument

During argument, the Court’s three Democratic justices uniformly treated Atkins as settled law and appeared to agree that defendants like Smith must be allowed to introduce evidence of adaptive-functioning deficits even when some IQ scores are above 70. Several Republican justices also signaled openness to a similar evidentiary approach.

• Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that some Alabama courts already examine adaptive functioning when IQ scores exceed 70.
• Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged Alabama’s lawyer to explain why courts should not look beyond IQ scores when other evidence favors the defendant.
• Chief Justice John Roberts criticized arguments that appeared "results-oriented," pressing whether courts could treat evidence differently depending on which side the IQ scores fall on.

Notably, Justice Neil Gorsuch and other conservatives did not press the originalist approach to the Eighth Amendment that Gorsuch floated in Bucklew v. Precythe (2019) — an approach that would measure cruelty by standards from the late 18th century. And even Justice Samuel Alito, who has been skeptical of a broad reading of Atkins in the past, framed Hamm as a case about the "evolving standard of decency."

Possible Outcomes

Two broad results are plausible. The Court could affirm the lower courts, leaving Smith off death row because he meets the clinical standard for an intellectual disability. Alternatively, the Court could rule narrowly against Smith — for example, by concluding his evidence was insufficient in this particular, borderline factual record — without undermining Atkins or the broader framework that requires consideration of adaptive functioning.

As Smith's attorney Seth Waxman emphasized, appellate courts generally defer to lower courts' factual determinations unless there is a "clear error," making wholesale reversal unlikely absent a compelling reason.

Bottom Line

Wednesday’s argument suggests the Supreme Court is unlikely to mount a sweeping rollback of Atkins or the modern Eighth Amendment framework in Hamm. Instead, the justices appeared inclined toward a narrow ruling that resolves Smith’s fate on the facts before them while leaving established protections for defendants with intellectual disabilities intact.