Hamm v. Smith, Docket No. 24-872

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

The Supreme Court just walked away from a case that could have changed how courts decide whether someone with an intellectual disability can be executed. Joseph Clifton Smith took five IQ tests. Four of them showed he was intellectually disabled. One didn't. Now his life depends on which number the courts believe matters most, and the nation's highest court refused to say.

The Case: One Man, Five Test Scores, One Unanswered Question

Joseph Clifton Smith was sentenced to death in Alabama in 1998 for murder. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Constitution. Smith argued he qualified for that protection. He took five IQ tests over the years. His scores were 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74. Standard error calculations allow for Smith's lowest score, 72, to be considered as low as 69. Alabama uses 70 as the cutoff for intellectual disability. The lowest score's error threshold is below Alabama's cutoff.

A federal judge looked at more than just the numbers. The judge reviewed the range of error built into each test, listened to expert witnesses, examined Smith's school records, and considered that Smith struggled with basic life skills. The judge concluded Smith was intellectually disabled. An appeals court agreed. The Supreme Court said it would decide the case, then suddenly changed its mind and dismissed it without explaining why.

The practical result: Smith cannot be executed. But the legal question remains completely unanswered, and that silence is creating chaos in courtrooms across the country.

What Each Side Argued

Alabama wanted courts to treat IQ scores like a math problem. Add them up, average them, find the middle number, the state argued. Use any standard statistical method, and Smith's scores land above 70. The state also said IQ tests are the most reliable evidence and should carry the most weight.

Smith's lawyers countered that Alabama's own law requires looking at the whole picture. They pointed out that every Alabama court since 2014 had done exactly that. They emphasized the overwhelming evidence: Smith was classified as intellectually disabled in seventh grade, tested two to four years behind his peers, and multiple experts agreed his intellectual functioning fell within the disability range.

The federal government sided with Alabama, arguing the lower courts had used the wrong legal standard and failed to weigh all the IQ evidence together properly.

Why the Supreme Court Walked Away

The Court issued a one-sentence opinion: the case was dismissed. No reasoning. No guidance. Nothing.

Justice Sotomayor explained her vote to dismiss. She noted that Alabama itself admitted there was no single required formula for combining scores. Even Alabama's own expert had not used the statistical methods the state was now pushing. More importantly, Alabama had never raised this argument in the lower courts. The state only brought it up at the Supreme Court level, making this a poor case to resolve the question.

Sotomayor also defended the lower courts' approach as consistent with how psychologists actually diagnose intellectual disability. The American Psychological Association says clinicians should evaluate all scores together using professional judgment, not mechanical formulas.

The Dissenters' Warning

Justice Alito argued the lower courts made serious errors. He said courts cannot ignore IQ scores just because other evidence suggests disability. Without clear rules, he warned, these hearings will become unpredictable battles between experts with wildly inconsistent results.

Justice Thomas went further. He argued the entire 2002 decision protecting intellectually disabled people from execution was wrong and should be overturned.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch joined Alito's call for clearer rules but notably refused to join his conclusion that the lower courts got this specific case wrong. That distinction matters. It suggests they agreed the law needs fixing but were not ready to say Smith's courts made a reversible error.

What This Means Going Forward

The Supreme Court left several fundamental questions unanswered. Should courts treat IQ scores as mathematical data points, or should they consider the full context of a person's life and abilities? Should federal constitutional law simply adopt whatever definition a state uses, or does the Constitution set its own independent standard? And when scientists disagree about how IQ tests work, who decides?

For now, Smith cannot be executed. But the legal pressure is building. Four justices want to provide guidance. Thomas wants to overturn the entire protection. The federal government wants to scale it back. This dismissal delays the conflict rather than resolves it, and the next case could force the Court to finally answer these questions, with stakes just as high.