The United States Supreme Court recently delved into a pressing legal quandary concerning Joseph Smith, an Alabama death row inmate. The justices were entangled with probing how lower courts assessed Smith’s assertion of intellectual disability, a status which could render him ineligible for execution. This examination comes after Smith submitted to various IQ tests over several decades, results which varied significantly and informed the courts’ previous conclusions. This is the second occasion the Supreme Court has considered an Alabama appeal to reinstate Smith’s death sentence, following a deliberation over the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s prior rulings.
In August 2023, Alabama approached the Supreme Court to contest the 11th Circuit’s decision that upheld a federal district judge’s nullification of Smith’s death sentence. This action came after prolonged litigation, including a remand for clarification in November 2024 by the Supreme Court to the 11th Circuit regarding their original decision. The appellate court subsequently reaffirmed its position, focusing on Smith’s capacity to be exempt from the death penalty under the Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling in Atkins v. Virginia.
The arguments presented to the Supreme Court centered on whether Smith’s lowest tested IQ of 72, with its margin of error, would allow a discretionary approach to evaluate his intellectual capabilities broadly. Alabama’s principal deputy solicitor general, Robert Overing, argued that the lower courts improperly expanded the scope of Atkins without Smith sufficiently demonstrating an IQ below 70. The state insisted that Alabama law requires Smith to prove his intellectual disability substantially, a standard they claim Smith fails to meet.
Conversely, the defense highlighted by former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, advocated that Alabama law necessitates a holistic evaluation of all evidence when determining intellectual functioning, inclusive of factors beyond mere IQ scores. These include neuropsychological assessments and historical academic performance, which suggest significant cognitive impairments in Smith’s case.
The debate before the justices also ventured into potential frameworks for determining intellectual disability when multiple IQ tests present. Justices such as Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan floated various proposals influenced by prior cases like Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas, calling for a nuanced balance of IQ scores against other life factors. The complex discourse reflects the challenges in creating a consistent legal threshold for intellectual disability amid diverse factual backgrounds and diagnostic standards.
With a decision anticipated by mid-2025, the Court’s ruling could have far-reaching implications on the criteria for adjudicating intellectual disability in capital cases, fostering unique considerations in jurisdictions nationwide regarding death row eligibility. For a comprehensive exploration of the case and arguments, the full details can be accessed on SCOTUSblog.