Amy Coney Barrett Questions Legal Arguments in Hamm v. Smith Case

Clarifying Legal Arguments

• ❓ Justice Amy Coney Barrett sought to clarify potential discrepancies in arguments presented by amicus curiae Harry Graver.
• 🎯 The core of her question was whether Graver's responses to Justice Kavanaugh differed from those given to Justice Gorsuch regarding specific legal claims.

Discrepancies in Evidence Consideration

• ⚖️ Barrett highlighted a perceived difference in how Graver addressed the consideration of adaptive functioning evidence.
• 💡 She noted that Graver's response to Justice Gorsuch did not explicitly include considering adaptive functioning, while his response to Justice Kavanaugh suggested it could outweigh IQ scores in certain circumstances.

Graver's Response on Adaptive Functioning

• 🧠 Graver clarified that while IQ scores alone may not be sufficient, states have discretion in structuring other evidence.
• 📌 He stated there is no constitutional mandate to consider adaptive functioning specifically, but acknowledged that if IQ scores are within a certain range, other factors might need consideration.
• 📊 Graver suggested that a rule focusing solely on conventional evidence of intellectual functioning would likely be constitutional.