U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Death-Row Case, Sparing Intellectually Disabled Inmate
The U.S. Supreme Court took the rare step of dismissing *Hamm v. Smith* as "improvidently granted," leaving intact a lower court ruling that spares death-row inmate Joseph Smith, who has intellectual disability. The 5-4 decision saw Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett join liberal justices, while four conservatives dissented. The Court avoided tightening standards for executing intellectually disabled prisoners, preserving Eighth Amendment protections established in *Atkins v. Virginia* (2002). Smith, convicted of murder in Alabama in 1997, had IQ scores in the mid-to-high 70s.
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
Why Kavanaugh and Barrett Joined With the Liberals in a 5–4 Death Penalty Case
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a surprising 5-4 decision in Hamm v. Smith, dismissing the case as improvidently granted and sparing the life of intellectually disabled death row inmate Joseph Smith. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in the majority, while four conservative justices dissented. The case involved Alabama's request for freer rein to execute intellectually disabled individuals. Legal analysts suggest the outcome was influenced by Alabama's poor legal representation, which failed to present a coherent theory for weighing IQ scores. The decision preserves existing Eighth Amendment protections against executing the intellectually disabled, though the dissent signaled sharp internal conflict over the potential to diminish those protections.
Slate MagazineSupreme Court Dismisses Death-Row Case, Handing Rare Win to Inmate with Intellectual Disability
The U.S. Supreme Court took the unusual step of dismissing a case it had already heard, ruling it was 'improvidently granted' (DIG'd), handing a rare victory to death-row prisoner Joseph Smith. The Court avoided a ruling that could have tightened standards for inmates with intellectual disabilities seeking to avoid execution. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, while Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the liberal justices to dismiss the case. Smith, convicted of murder in Alabama in 1997, had IQ scores in the mid-to-high 70s and presented evidence of poor educational performance. The lower court decision in his favor stands as final. The article discusses the 2002 Atkins v. Virginia precedent barring execution of intellectually disabled individuals and the ongoing legal confusion over IQ cutoffs.
The New RepublicSupreme Court Dismisses Death-Row Case, Handing Rare Win to Inmate with Intellectual Disability
The U.S. Supreme Court took the unusual step of dismissing a case it had already heard, ruling it was 'improvidently granted' (DIG'd), handing a rare victory to death-row prisoner Joseph Smith. The Court avoided a ruling that could have made it harder for intellectually disabled prisoners to avoid execution. Smith, convicted of murder in Alabama in 1997, had IQ scores in the mid-to-high 70s and presented evidence of intellectual disability. The lower court decision in his favor stands. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting, while Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the liberal justices. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion, while Justice Alito dissented, arguing the Court missed an opportunity to clarify precedent on executing intellectually disabled individuals. The article also reviews the 2002 Atkins v. Virginia ruling and subsequent 2014 precedent on borderline IQ cases.
The New RepublicSupreme Court Dismisses Death-Row Case, Handing Rare Win to Inmate with Intellectual Disability
The U.S. Supreme Court took the unusual step of dismissing a case it had already heard, ruling it was 'improvidently granted' (DIG'd), handing a rare victory to death-row prisoner Joseph Smith. The Court avoided a ruling that could have made it harder for intellectually disabled prisoners to avoid execution. Smith, convicted of murder in Alabama in 1997, had IQ scores in the mid-to-high 70s and presented evidence of intellectual disability. The Court's liberal justices joined with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett to dismiss the case, while Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. The lower court decision in Smith's favor stands as final. The article discusses the legal history of executing intellectually disabled individuals, including the 2002 Atkins v. Virginia ruling and subsequent 2014 guidance on borderline IQ cases.
The New RepublicSupreme Court Dismisses Death-Row Case, Handing Rare Win to Inmate with Intellectual Disability
The U.S. Supreme Court took the unusual step of dismissing a case it had already heard, ruling it was 'improvidently granted' (DIG'd), handing a rare victory to death-row prisoner Joseph Smith. The court avoided issuing a substantive ruling that could have tightened standards for executing inmates with intellectual disabilities. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, while Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the court's liberals to dismiss the case. Smith, convicted of murder in Alabama in 1997, had challenged his death sentence by presenting IQ scores in the mid-to-high 70s and evidence of poor educational performance. The lower court's ruling in Smith's favor now stands as final. The article discusses the legal history of Atkins v. Virginia (2002), which bars executing intellectually disabled individuals, and subsequent disputes over IQ cutoffs and evidentiary standards.
The New Republic