In a divided ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court dismissed Alabama’s request to execute a convicted murderer whom lower courts had determined is intellectually disabled.
The decision leaves in place earlier court rulings that protect 55-year-old Joseph Clifton Smith from the death penalty. Smith has spent roughly half his life on death row after being convicted in the 1997 beating death of a man.
The Supreme Court has banned the execution of people with intellectual disabilities since its landmark 2002 decision. In later rulings in 2014 and 2017, the justices said states must consider evidence beyond IQ scores in borderline cases because IQ tests have a margin of error.
Smith’s case centered on exactly this issue. He has taken five IQ tests over the years, with scores ranging from 72 to 78. While these scores sit slightly above the commonly used cutoff of 70, his lawyers presented other strong evidence of disability. Smith was placed in learning-disabled classes as a child and dropped out of school after seventh grade. At the time of the crime, he performed math at a kindergarten level, spelled at a third-grade level, and read at a fourth-grade level.
The Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case to clarify how courts should handle these borderline intellectual disability claims. Oral arguments were held in December. However, instead of issuing a full opinion, the justices chose the unusual step of simply dismissing the appeal. This action upholds the last lower-court ruling in Smith’s favor without setting a new national precedent.
Split Decision
The majority consisted of the court’s three liberal justices along with conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The remaining four conservative justices dissented. They argued that the federal appeals court in Atlanta had analyzed the case incorrectly and said the lower court should be required to take another look at Smith’s claims.
The case is Hamm v. Smith, 24-872.
This outcome means Smith will remain protected from execution for now, as the lower courts’ findings of intellectual disability stand. The decision highlights ongoing divisions at the Supreme Court over how strictly states must apply protections for intellectually disabled death row inmates.
