Could a single IQ point mean the difference between life and death?
The Hill reported that the Supreme Court recently tackled a thorny issue in Alabama’s push to execute Joseph Clifton Smith, weighing how intellectual disability is measured and whether multiple IQ scores should tip the scales in death penalty cases.
Back in 1997, Smith was convicted of capital murder for the brutal beating death of Durk Van Dam during a robbery. Alabama sentenced him to death, but lower courts later overturned that ruling. It all hinges on his IQ scores, which hover in the low- to mid-70s across five tests.
Generally, an IQ of 70 or below marks the threshold for intellectual disability, shielding someone from execution under the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Alabama’s own law mirrors this, requiring a score at or below 70 alongside adaptive behavior deficits from developmental years. Yet, the state argues Smith’s scores, some just above the cutoff, justify his execution.
In 2021, a federal judge threw out Smith’s death sentence, pointing to the error margin in his lowest score that could place him below 70. The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld this in 2023, frustrating Alabama’s claim that the courts rewrote the rules.
The Supreme Court has danced with this case before, initially nudging the lower court to clarify its reasoning after the 11th Circuit backed Smith’s exemption. Soon after, the lower court doubled down, confirming Smith’s intellectual disability barred capital punishment. This week’s arguments mark the justices’ latest attempt to settle the dust.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the justices seemed eager to pin down how multiple IQ scores should be evaluated, though their approaches varied.
Some, like Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, questioned whether Alabama was the one pushing for a shiny new standard.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh chimed in with a practical take, suggesting, “I think that’d be setting a floor, not binding the other states. They could always go above.” It’s a fair point—why shouldn’t states have room to be tougher if they choose, without trampling constitutional protections?
Others, like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, probed whether a federal baseline would spark state-level challenges, while Justice Neil Gorsuch noted such disputes might not even touch Eighth Amendment concerns. This isn’t just legal nitpicking; it’s about ensuring the system doesn’t play fast and loose with life-and-death calls.
Alabama’s stance took heat for seemingly ignoring the nuance of IQ margins and adaptive functioning evidence.
Their lawyer, Robert Overing, insisted, “The lower court changed the rules.” But isn’t it the state trying to lock in a rigid cutoff while sidestepping the messy reality of test errors?
The government’s attorney, Harry Graver, offered a middle ground, arguing that states should have leeway to define intellectual disability and sometimes look beyond raw scores. Justice Elena Kagan seemed to nod along, hinting at rare alignment with the feds on balancing hard numbers with broader evidence.
Justice Kavanaugh noted the government’s view diverges from Alabama’s hardline push, leaving the Court to untangle a knot of competing principles. It’s classic judicial wrestling—how do you honor state rights without letting constitutional safeguards crumble?
This case isn’t just about Smith; it could reshape how courts nationwide handle intellectual disability claims in capital cases.
Past Supreme Court rulings already allow evidence for those near the 70 threshold and acknowledge IQ test margins of error. A decision, expected by next summer, might finally clarify whether a single low score or a holistic view wins out.
