Authors’ note: The disability community is rapidly evolving to use identity-first language in place of person-first language. This is because it views disability as being a core component of identity, much like race and gender. Some members of the community, such as people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, prefer person-first language. In this column, the terms are used interchangeably.
On December 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Hamm v. Smith, a case that could determine how courts apply the death penalty to people with intellectual disabilities. This landmark case comes in the midst of Congress and the Trump administration’s cruel and prolonged attacks on disabled people, from cutting crucial benefits such as Medicaid to eliminating essential resources meant to help enforce disability civil rights laws. This case could have huge implications for how IQ tests are utilized in determining the death penalty.
Background
The case revolves around Joseph Clifton Smith, a man convicted of murder in Alabama. As a child, Smith was identified as having significant learning difficulties, and he received a 74 and 75 on his IQ tests (the national average is 97.4). He struggled significantly in school and was placed into special education classes. Smith eventually dropped out of school after failing seventh and eighth grade. He was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned over the next 15 years before the arrest that led to this case.
In 1997, Smith admitted he killed a man during the course of a robbery. At the time of his arrest, testing determined that Smith “performed math at the level of a kindergarten-aged child, spelled at a third-grade level, and read at a fourth-grade level.” Smith was convicted of capital murder and the jury recommended that he be sentenced to death. The trial court agreed with this recommendation. In the decades since Smith’s sentencing, the Supreme Court has issued two foundational opinions, Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida, which Smith claims should result in the commutation of his sentence.
Atkins holds that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment bars the execution of individuals with mental disabilities. This 6-3 opinion transformed the capital punishment landscape by allowing individuals with intellectual disabilities to challenge their death sentence via an “Atkins claim.” The Supreme Court left it up to the states to decide the exact definition of intellectual disability. In response, Florida stated that an individual must have an IQ of 70 or below. Freddie Lee Hall received a 71 on his IQ test after being convicted of murder in Florida. Florida argued Atkins did not apply to people with an IQ above 70 and sought to execute Hall. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the justices, in a 5-4 decision, found that states cannot establish a rigid IQ test cutoff for an Atkins claim because “[i]ntellectual disability is a condition, not a number.”
During the course of Smith’s sentencing and his many appeals, he has undergone three more IQ tests, scoring 72, 74, and 78. In Atkins, the court found that an IQ of “approximately 70” can indicate an intellectual disability, but Smith’s case is complicated by the fact that he has several different IQ scores, only one of which is not below or at 70 when taking into account the margin of error (+/- 5 points). Both the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit stayed Smith’s execution. However, Alabama appealed the case to the Supreme Court, claiming that Smith could not “prove an IQ of 70 or less.”
Smith’s legal team argues that the court should not rely solely on IQ scores but instead use a holistic assessment for intellectual disability under Hall and Atkins. They argue that the court should use the generally accepted diagnostic formula for intellectual disability to make a decision on Atkins relief, meaning that they must include an assessment of adaptive functioning and developmental period in their evaluations. This is particularly important when an IQ score falls between 70 and 75. Numerous disability groups submitted a combined amicus brief agreeing with Smith on the importance of taking a holistic approach to Atkins claims.
Question and argument
The Supreme Court intends to answer “whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.” The court’s decision has the potential to radically change how states utilize IQ tests to diagnose intellectual disability. It is essential that the Supreme Court justices uphold the Eighth Amendment and acknowledge the “inherent error in IQ testing” as it did in the Atkins and Hall decisions.
Researchers agree that IQ tests cannot be used as the single factor to diagnose intellectual disability. Both the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) 5-TR, which provide the diagnostic standards for intellectual disability, require clinicians to evaluate adaptive behavior along with intellectual functioning. Several states ignore medical standards by overly relying on the IQ test. Alabama even required Smith to test numerous times, thus ignoring research that warns against doing so because it can cause a “practice effect” by inflating scores.
Smith, who has scores that fall within the margin of error for Alabama’s IQ cutoff for intellectual disability, also shows significant maladaptive behaviors that started before adulthood. Interviews with Smith’s family and friends indicated he “had deficits in communication, reading, writing, functional academics, self-direction, and social skills.” His school performance “paralleled his low IQ scores” and “corroborates their accuracy as to his intellectual functioning.” Smith dropped out of school and continued having maladaptive behaviors, which led to multiple arrests and incarceration.
If you would like to tune into oral arguments, you can do so via this link. Arguments will begin at approximately 10:00 a.m. ET on December 10. To read more about this case, click here.
Conclusion
Even after Atkins and Hall, people with intellectual disabilities are still being executed by states. The Supreme Court must follow its own precedent by restricting states from using strict IQ score limits to allow for an Atkins review and diagnose intellectual disability. It should also limit states from requiring an individual test multiple times to fish for scores. Diagnosing intellectual disability is complex and requires a holistic evaluation that includes assessing adaptive behaviors. The court must not allow states to continue to violate the Eighth Amendment.
The authors would like to thank Will Roberts and Devon Ombres for their reviews, Allie Preston for fact-checking, and CAP’s Editorial and Legal teams for their guidance.