The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a case that advocates say could have major implications for how intellectual disability is defined.
The high court will consider Hamm v. Smith on Wednesday. At issue is how multiple IQ scores should be factored when evaluating whether a person qualifies for a diagnosis of intellectual disability.
The case focuses on Joseph Clifton Smith, who was convicted of capital murder, and whether or not he has intellectual disability. Smith has taken five IQ tests, with scores ranging from 72 to 78. The state of Alabama contends that Smith should be eligible for execution since his IQ scores are consistently over 70, but attorneys for Smith argue that given how low his scores are, the court should consider additional evidence.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
More than two decades ago, the Supreme Court determined in Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with intellectual disabilities is cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Eighth Amendment. Additional cases since then have validated that decision and reinforced that clinical standards should be used to determine who falls into this category as opposed to relying on an IQ score alone.
The outcome of the case may reverberate far beyond the death penalty, advocates say.
“A decision in this case could have extremely significant consequences for people with intellectual disabilities,” said Jennifer Mathis, deputy director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. “There is no punishment more severe than death, and the wrongful use of this penalty on people with intellectual disabilities would be devastating. Further, it is possible that a decision with an inappropriately narrow understanding of intellectual disability could have ramifications far beyond the death penalty if such a narrow view of how intellectual disability is determined were applied in the context of eligibility for disability services.”
The Bazelon Center joined with The Arc of the United States, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the National Disability Rights Network to file an amicus brief in the case urging the court to stick with an established clinical framework to evaluate claims of intellectual disability. The framework considers whether a person has significant limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive functioning that arose before adulthood.
The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association also filed a brief supporting Smith.
However, 20 states and the Trump administration are backing Alabama in the case.
“The intellectual-functioning prong is the only objective part of the analysis, because it turns on concrete IQ scores, rather than subjective clinical judgments. Insisting on some objective element to anchor this analysis serves key penological ends by promoting ‘consistency in the application of the death penalty and confidence that it is not being administered haphazardly,’” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in an amicus brief. “The Eighth Amendment permits governments to make that choice.”
Attorneys for Smith counter that clinical standards in the field — which require examining more than IQ scores — have remained virtually unchanged for 60 years.
Getting the case right is paramount for people with disabilities, according to Shira Wakschlag, senior executive officer of legal advocacy and general counsel at The Arc.
“Anytime the Supreme Court opines on the definition of intellectual disability, the implications may go far beyond the death penalty,” she said. “Whether a person is defined as having an intellectual disability is relevant in many other circumstances, including health care, home and community-based services, educational services, and more. It is critical that the Supreme Court continue to rely on science and clinical judgment in defining intellectual disability in the death penalty context and beyond.”
