Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Death Penalty for Low-IQ Convicts in Hamm v. Smith

Case Background: Hamm v. Smith

• ⚖️ The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hamm v. Smith, a case concerning the application of the death penalty for individuals with low IQ scores.
• 📌 The core issue revolves around the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment and previous rulings like Atkins, which created an exception for intellectually disabled offenders.

Petitioner's Argument: Expanding Atkins

• 🎯 The petitioner argues that the lower courts improperly expanded the Atkins exception by misinterpreting IQ scores and changing the standard.
• 📉 Scores of 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 were presented, with the petitioner asserting that these scores do not meet the threshold for intellectual disability.
• 📈 The lower courts allegedly expanded Atkins by considering the lowest score in isolation or by moving the threshold to 75, which the petitioner argues eliminates state discretion and ignores the combined effect of multiple scores.
• 💡 The petitioner proposes that states should have discretion in defining the first prong of intellectual disability, with guidelines such as using the best evidence of intellectual functioning (IQ), defining the threshold as 70 or below, and requiring the claimant to prove their IQ by a preponderance of the evidence.

Respondent's Counterarguments and Judicial Questions

• ❓ Justices questioned how to handle multiple IQ scores, the burden of proof, and the role of adaptive functioning evidence.
• 🧠 The respondent's counsel argued that the consistent evidence shows Smith's IQ is above 70 and that the offender bears the burden to prove a likelihood of an IQ below 70 using a specific method.
• ⚖️ Questions arose about whether the lower courts changed the standard by considering a broader conception of intellectual functioning beyond just IQ scores.
• 📊 The discussion touched upon the scientific warrant behind IQ tests and the potential for IQ tests to underestimate true capacity.

Legal Precedents and State Discretion

• 📜 The debate involved the interpretation of Hall and Moore, with differing views on whether these cases mandate a holistic review or allow for more state discretion.
• 🏛️ Justices explored the extent of state discretion in defining intellectual disability versus the federal constitutional minimum set by the Eighth Amendment.
• 🔄 Some justices suggested that Hall and Moore require an opportunity for defendants to present adaptive functioning evidence when a low score is present, but that this evidence might be outweighed by other IQ scores.
• 🧩 The petitioner argued that Alabama law requires a