Supreme Court struggles over whether Alabama can execute man found to be intellectually disabled

The Supreme Court grappled Wednesday with a complex legal question that could determine when convicted murderers with borderline intellectual disabilities should be spared from execution, as justices heard arguments in an Alabama death penalty case that has drawn national attention.

For nearly two hours, the high court considered the appeal from Alabama officials seeking to execute 55-year-old Joseph Clifton Smith, who has spent roughly half his life on death row following his conviction for a 1997 murder. Lower federal courts previously ruled Smith is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution.

The case centers on a fundamental question: How should courts evaluate intellectual disability in borderline cases where IQ test scores hover just above traditional thresholds?

In 2002, the Supreme Court established in its landmark Atkins v. Virginia ruling that executing intellectually disabled individuals violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Subsequent decisions in 2014 and 2017 directed states to consider evidence beyond IQ scores when evaluating borderline cases, acknowledging the inherent margin of error in such tests.

Smith’s case presents exactly such a borderline scenario. His five documented IQ tests produced scores ranging from 72 to 78 – all slightly above the widely accepted threshold of 70 that typically indicates intellectual disability. However, his lawyers presented substantial evidence of significant cognitive limitations throughout his life.

“He received a diagnosis of mental retardation in the seventh grade,” Smith’s attorney Seth Waxman told the justices, using terminology that was standard at the time of diagnosis. Court records show Smith was placed in learning-disabled classes before dropping out after seventh grade. At the time of his crime, he performed math at a kindergarten level, spelled at a third-grade level, and read at a fourth-grade level.

Alabama and 21 other states, joined by the Trump administration, are asking the now more conservative court to narrow its previous rulings. They argue that relying primarily on IQ scores would provide clearer guidance and more consistent application of the death penalty.

“There is no way that he can prove an IQ below 70,” Alabama lawyer Robert M. Overing argued, suggesting Smith’s case should be straightforward for the state based solely on test scores.

Justice Samuel Alito, who dissented in the court’s previous intellectual disability cases along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts, expressed concern that ruling for Smith would create “messy court fights” where “everything is up for grabs in every case.”

However, disability rights organizations submitted briefs supporting Smith, emphasizing that “intellectual disability diagnoses based solely on IQ test scores are faulty and invalid” according to modern clinical standards. These groups argue that comprehensive evaluation requires consideration of adaptive functioning and developmental history.

Justice Elena Kagan acknowledged this complexity, noting courts must consider additional evidence beyond IQ scores but “that’s not to say you have to accept it” as determinative.

Smith was convicted and sentenced to death for the brutal beating death of Durk Van Dam in Mobile County, Alabama. Prosecutors said Van Dam was beaten to death with a hammer and robbed of $150, his boots, and tools before being left dead in his pickup truck.

Alabama law defines intellectual disability as an IQ of 70 or below, along with significant deficits in adaptive behavior that manifest before age 18. A federal judge in 2021 vacated Smith’s death sentence after a thorough review of his case, though she acknowledged “this is a close case.”

The Supreme Court had previously returned Smith’s case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which affirmed its “holistic” approach to evaluating his intellectual capacity. In June 2023, the high court announced it would review the case again.

The justices’ decision, expected by early summer, could significantly impact how courts nationwide evaluate intellectual disability claims in capital cases. It represents the court’s most substantial examination of this issue since its 2017 ruling in Moore v. Texas, which rejected overly restrictive approaches to assessing intellectual disability.