The Supreme Court's Dangerous Intellectual Disability Debate Threatens Justice and Human Dignity

The Case Before the Court

The United States Supreme Court is currently grappling with one of the most morally consequential questions in criminal justice: how to determine intellectual disability in death penalty cases when IQ scores fall into borderline ranges. The case involves Joseph Clifton Smith, a 55-year-old Alabama man who has spent half his life on death row for a 1997 murder conviction. What makes this case particularly significant is not the crime itself, but the ongoing judicial debate about whether someone with multiple IQ scores ranging from 72 to 78 - just above the commonly accepted threshold of 70 for intellectual disability - should be subject to execution.

Smith’s educational history reveals a pattern of severe cognitive limitations that extend far beyond his test scores. He was placed in learning-disabled classes, dropped out after seventh grade, and at the time of the crime functioned at elementary school levels in reading, spelling, and mathematics. His lawyer, Seth Waxman, argued before the Court that Smith received a diagnosis of “mental retardation” (the term then in use) during his school years, demonstrating long-standing cognitive challenges that IQ tests alone cannot fully capture.

Legal Context and Precedent

This case exists within a complex legal framework established through decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence. In the landmark 2002 Atkins v. Virginia decision, the Court prohibited the execution of intellectually disabled individuals, recognizing that such punishment violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Subsequent decisions in 2014 and 2017 further clarified that states must consider evidence beyond IQ tests in borderline cases, acknowledging the inherent margin of error in standardized testing and the multifaceted nature of intellectual disability.

Alabama law specifically defines intellectual disability as requiring an IQ of 70 or below, alongside significant deficits in adaptive behavior that manifest before age 18. The state, joined by twenty other states and the Trump administration, is now asking the more conservative current Court to retreat from previous rulings and establish a stricter standard that would prioritize IQ scores over comprehensive evidence of disability.

During oral arguments, the ideological divisions on the Court were apparent. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who had dissented in the earlier cases, appeared sympathetic to Alabama’s position. Justice Alito expressed concern that ruling for Smith would lead to “messy court fights” in other death row cases, while Alabama’s lawyer Robert M. Overing argued that because Smith never scored below 70 on any test, he cannot prove intellectual disability under their preferred interpretation.

The Human Dimension Beyond the Legal Technicalities

What gets lost in these legal technicalities is the profound human tragedy at the heart of this case. We are debating whether to execute a man who reads at a fourth-grade level, spells at a third-grade level, and does math at a kindergarten level. The cold bureaucracy of IQ scores cannot capture the lived experience of intellectual disability - the daily struggles, the educational limitations, the social challenges that define someone’s entire existence.

Justice Elena Kagan correctly noted during arguments that courts must consider additional evidence while not being required to automatically accept it. This balanced approach recognizes both the limitations of standardized testing and the need for rigorous judicial scrutiny. The rights groups supporting Smith emphasized in their brief that “intellectual disability diagnoses based solely on IQ test scores are faulty and invalid” - a position supported by decades of psychological research and professional standards.

The Dangerous Precedent Being Set

The push to narrow intellectual disability protections represents a dangerous regression in our justice system’s evolution toward greater humanity and scientific accuracy. If the Court sides with Alabama, it would effectively prioritize administrative convenience over constitutional principles and medical reality. Justice should not be about creating neat, easily administrable categories but about ensuring that punishment aligns with both legal standards and human dignity.

This case also raises disturbing questions about federalism and states’ rights when they conflict with fundamental constitutional protections. While states traditionally have latitude in administering their justice systems, the Eighth Amendment sets a national floor below which no state may sink. Allowing states to use rigid IQ cutoffs that ignore comprehensive evidence of disability would effectively create a race to the bottom in death penalty administration.

The Moral Imperative for Comprehensive Assessment

As a society that values both justice and compassion, we must recognize that intellectual disability cannot be reduced to a single number. The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, the American Psychological Association, and other professional organizations all emphasize that intellectual disability diagnosis requires comprehensive assessment including adaptive functioning, not just IQ scores. To ignore this professional consensus is to substitute judicial preference for expert knowledge.

The margin of error in IQ testing - typically around five points - means that someone with a score of 72 could easily have a true score below 70. This statistical reality alone should compel courts to consider additional evidence in borderline cases. When a man’s life hangs in the balance, we owe him more than a mechanical application of imperfect measurements.

Conclusion: Upholding Constitutional Principles and Human Dignity

The Supreme Court faces a defining moment that will reveal much about our nation’s commitment to both justice and humanity. To retreat from previous protections for intellectually disabled individuals would represent a failure of constitutional principle and moral courage. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment exists precisely to prevent the state from exercising its ultimate power against those who lack the cognitive capacity to fully understand their actions or their punishment.

We must hope that the Court affirms the holistic approach taken by lower courts in Smith’s case and reinforces the principle that justice requires looking beyond numbers to actual human capability and understanding. The alternative - reducing complex human beings to test scores in life-or-death decisions - would mark a dark regression in American jurisprudence and a betrayal of our nation’s founding commitment to human dignity and equal justice under law.

The decision in Hamm v. Smith, expected by early summer, will either reaffirm our progress toward a more humane justice system or signal a dangerous retreat into judicial formalism that values administrative convenience over constitutional principles and human lives.