The Supreme Court vacated an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision Monday in *Hamm v. Smith*, sending the case back to the appeals court to clarify how courts should evaluate intellectual disability claims in death penalty cases.
The case involves Joseph Clifton Smith, whose death sentence was vacated by a federal district court after the court concluded he is intellectually disabled. Smith obtained five full-scale IQ scores ranging from 72 to 78, placing his intellectual capacity at the center of legal debate over whether he qualifies for constitutional protection from execution.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits executing individuals with intellectual disabilities, but determining who meets this standard remains complex. Courts must navigate the intersection of IQ test scores, standard error measurements, and other evidence of intellectual functioning.
The district court found that Smith's IQ could be as low as 69 when applying the standard error of measurement to his lowest score of 72. This statistical adjustment accounts for the inherent imprecision in IQ testing, recognizing that test scores represent a range rather than precise measurements. The court also determined that Smith's lowest score was not an outlier when considered alongside his higher scores.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence, but the Supreme Court found the appeals court's reasoning unclear. In its brief order, the high court noted that the Eleventh Circuit's opinion "might be read to suggest a per se rule that the lower end of the standard-error range for an offender's lowest score is dispositive."
Alternatively, the Supreme Court observed, the Eleventh Circuit's opinion could be interpreted as endorsing "a more holistic approach that considers the relevant evidence, including as appropriate any relevant expert testimony."
This distinction matters significantly for how courts nationwide evaluate intellectual disability claims in capital cases. A per se rule focusing solely on the statistical lower bound of IQ scores would create a more mechanical test, potentially making it easier for defendants to establish intellectual disability. A holistic approach would require courts to weigh multiple factors, including adaptive functioning deficits and the onset of intellectual limitations before age 18.
The Supreme Court's decision to remand rather than rule on the merits reflects the complexity of intellectual disability determinations in the death penalty context. The court has previously established that states cannot use a bright-line IQ cutoff to determine intellectual disability, but questions remain about how much weight courts should give to statistical margins of error.
In *Atkins v. Virginia* (2002), the Supreme Court held that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The court later clarified in *Hall v. Florida* (2014) that states cannot use rigid IQ cutoffs that ignore the standard error of measurement inherent in such tests.
Smith's case demonstrates ongoing challenges in applying these precedents. With IQ scores spanning 72 to 78, Smith falls into a gray area where statistical considerations become crucial. The standard error of measurement acknowledges that IQ tests have built-in imprecision, typically ranging from three to five points.
The Alabama Department of Corrections, led by Commissioner John Hamm, had petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case, likely seeking to reinstate Smith's death sentence. The state presumably argued that the lower courts improperly applied intellectual disability standards or gave excessive weight to statistical adjustments.
The remand leaves Smith's legal status uncertain. His death sentence remains vacated pending the Eleventh Circuit's clarification of its reasoning. The appeals court must now explain whether it applied a mechanical rule based on statistical ranges or considered broader evidence of intellectual functioning.
This case joins a line of Supreme Court decisions addressing intellectual disability in capital punishment. The court has consistently moved toward more nuanced approaches that consider multiple forms of evidence rather than relying solely on IQ scores. However, the practical application of these standards continues to generate litigation.
The Supreme Court's order, dated Nov. 4, 2024, reflects the ongoing evolution of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence regarding intellectual disability. As states continue to grapple with these determinations, the clarity the court seeks from the Eleventh Circuit could influence how similar cases are resolved nationwide.
The remand ensures that Smith's case will continue through the federal courts, with the Eleventh Circuit required to provide clearer guidance on its analytical framework for intellectual disability determinations in death penalty cases.