The Supreme Court dismissed Hamm v. Smith 5-4, sparing an Alabama death row inmate but leaving courts without a uniform test for borderline IQ cases.
The Supreme Court dismissed *Hamm v. Smith* as improvidently granted in a 5-4 decision on May 21, leaving in place an Eleventh Circuit ruling that Alabama death row inmate Joseph Clifton Smith cannot be executed because he is intellectually disabled [1]. Smith scored between 72 and 78 on five separate IQ tests, placing him in the contested borderline range that sits near, but not clearly below, the clinical threshold for intellectual disability [1]. The dismissal spares his life but does not resolve the underlying legal question his case raised.
The Court had taken up the case to address how lower courts should weigh multiple borderline IQ scores when making Atkins determinations, the constitutional inquiry established in *Atkins v. Virginia* (2002) that bars the execution of intellectually disabled persons under the Eighth Amendment [2]. The Eleventh Circuit had ruled in Smith's favor, finding that the cumulative weight of his test scores, combined with other clinical evidence, established intellectual disability as a matter of law [1]. Alabama sought review, arguing the Eleventh Circuit applied an unworkable standard that would extend the Atkins bar too far.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, concluded the Court had "no meaningful guidance" to offer on how courts should evaluate multi-score IQ evidence in borderline cases, making the grant of certiorari improvident [1]. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and went further, calling on the Court to reconsider the Atkins doctrine altogether and restore the states' authority to set their own standards for executing intellectually disabled individuals [2]. Three other justices joined in dissent, though their precise grounds varied [1].
The dismissal carries immediate and long-term consequences operating in opposite directions. In the short term, it preserves the Eleventh Circuit's ruling and forecloses Alabama's ability to execute Smith under current precedent [2]. Over the longer term, it leaves every circuit court without authoritative guidance on multi-score IQ methodology, guaranteeing that similarly situated defendants in other circuits will face materially different legal standards depending on geography [1]. Thomas's dissent, urging reconsideration of Atkins itself, signals that at least one justice is prepared to revisit the foundational rule if a better vehicle arrives. Advocates on both sides of capital litigation will now work to shape the next case that presents the issue cleanly enough for the Court to take and decide on the merits.