Court to review the use of IQ tests in prohibiting the execution of intellectually disabled individuals

In 2002, the Supreme Court determined in Atkins v. Virginia that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Constitutions prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Next Wednesday, December 10, the Court will hear oral arguments in Hamm v. Smith, addressing how courts should evaluate claims under Atkins when a defendant has multiple IQ test results.

Alabama argues that the lower court erred in overturning Joseph Smiths death sentence by focusing too much on the outcomes of his five IQ tests, suggesting that, when considered together, his scores indicate he is not intellectually disabled. Smith contends the court considered the full spectrum of evidence rather than a single score in its decision.

Smith was sentenced to death for the 1997 robbery and murder of Durk Van Dam. His case has traveled a complex legal path: state court appeals and post-conviction requests were unsuccessful, but a federal court in Mobile, Alabama, overturned his sentence. In May 2023, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. Alabama then petitioned the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case across 22 conferences before remanding it to the 11th Circuit in November 2024 for clarification. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch indicated they would have taken up the case immediately.

Upon return to the appellate court, Smiths death sentence was again overturned. He had five IQ scores ranging from 72 to 78, and his claim partly hinged on whether his IQ fell below 70. The 11th Circuit emphasized that it did not base its decision solely on the lowest score but on the full record, including expert testimony, and concluded that Smith exhibited significantly subaverage intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior deficits before age 18.

In February, Alabama sought Supreme Court intervention for a second time. The justices agreed in June to hear the case, framing the issue as whether and how courts may consider the combined impact of multiple IQ scores when determining if a death row defendant is intellectually disabled.

Alabama argued that Atkins did not provide specific guidance on multiple IQ tests and that no national consensus exists on how to treat them. The state noted that some jurisdictions focus on the lowest score while others weigh the highest, and urged that the Court should not expand the Eighth Amendment to mandate considering cumulative IQ scores. The state stressed that Smiths highest score of 78 undermines his claim and that federal courts should defer to state sentences, particularly in fields like psychiatry, where standards can evolve.

The Trump administration submitted a brief supporting Alabama, noting that multiple IQ tests provide a more accurate assessment than any single test and that courts should be allowed to evaluate all relevant evidence.

Smiths brief argued that courts must assess IQ scores in context, incorporating expert analysis and other evidence of intellectual functioning, such as behavioral history, school records, and additional cognitive testing. He emphasized that this comprehensive approach aligns with nearly all states and professional standards and that the core diagnostic criteria for intellectual disability have remained largely unchanged over decades.

Author: Grace Ellison