Supreme Court deliberates on Alabama’s plan to execute a man deemed intellectually disabled.

The Supreme Court of the United States recently engaged in a complex deliberation concerning the criteria for determining intellectual disability in death penalty cases, particularly focusing on whether borderline cases should receive special consideration. The case arose from Alabama, where the execution of Joseph Clifton Smith, a convicted murderer, hangs in the balance amid concerns over his intellectual capabilities.

Smith, 55, has been on death row for approximately half of his life following his conviction for the 1997 murder of Durk Van Dam. Van Dam was brutally beaten to death with a hammer during a robbery that netted only 0 and some personal belongings. Previously, Smith’s case had garnered the attention of lower federal courts, which ruled he is intellectually disabled, thus shielding him from execution under established Supreme Court precedent that prohibits the execution of individuals with such disabilities.

In a pivotal 2002 ruling, the Supreme Court barred the execution of intellectually disabled individuals, emphasizing that states must adopt a lenient approach when assessing borderline cases. This includes taking into consideration evidence beyond IQ scores due to their inherent margins of error. The case at hand raises significant questions about the reliability of IQ testing, particularly when an individual, like Smith, presents multiple IQ scores ranging from 72 to 78, all in close proximity to the generally accepted threshold of 70.

During the oral arguments, Smith’s attorney contended that his client’s educational history and diagnosed learning disabilities indicate a level of intellectual impairment warranting consideration beyond mere numerical scores. Smith dropped out of school after the seventh grade and exhibited skills consistent with much lower educational levels—a childhood marked by learning difficulties.

Conversely, representatives for the state of Alabama and various allied jurisdictions argue that strict adherence to the established IQ threshold should prevail since Smith never achieved a score below 70. The case poses a significant challenge for the Supreme Court, particularly given its current conservative makeup, which could lead to a reevaluation of previous decisions that have broader implications for other death row inmates with similar claims.

As the court weighs the complexities of this case, there are voices from disability rights groups who contend that reliance solely on IQ test scores is an inadequate measure for assessing intellectual disability and could lead to unsound legal foundations for such critical determinations. The justices are expected to render a decision in the case of Hamm v. Smith, 24-872, by early summer, a ruling that may reshape how courts approach the intersection of intellectual disability and capital punishment in the United States.

The stakes are high as the nation watches this critical legal battle unfold, poised to affect not only Smith but potentially countless others facing similar circumstances within the justice system.