SPEAKIN’ OUT NEWS
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a closely watched Alabama death penalty case that could clarify how IQ scores are used to determine whether a person is eligible for execution.
The case, Hamm v. Smith, centers on Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama man convicted of murdering Durk Van Dam during a 1997 robbery in Mobile County. Smith confessed to beating Van Dam to death, but his attorneys argue that he is intellectually disabled, making his execution unconstitutional.
Lower federal courts—the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit—halted Smith’s execution after finding that Alabama failed to properly evaluate evidence of intellectual disability. The state appealed, arguing Smith does not meet the legal threshold because he cannot prove an IQ score of 70 or below.
The Supreme Court barred the execution of intellectually disabled individuals in its 2002 ruling Atkins v. Virginia, but left states to define intellectual disability. In 2014, the Court ruled in Hall v. Florida that states cannot rely on a rigid IQ cutoff, noting IQ scores should be treated as a range with inherent imprecision.
Smith has taken five IQ tests since his conviction, scoring 75, 74, 72, 78 and 74. Alabama Principal Deputy Solicitor General Robert Overing argued that Smith’s highest score best reflects his intellectual functioning and warned that lower scores could be artificially depressed.
“Nothing in the Eighth Amendment bars the sentence Joseph Smith received,” Overing told the Court, arguing that Smith does not fall within the limited Atkins exception.
Smith’s attorney, Seth Waxman, countered that IQ should not be treated as the sole determining factor. He pointed to Smith’s school records, which showed severe learning difficulties, placement in special education and academic performance several grade levels below average.
Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern that loosening standards could lead to uncertainty and increased litigation, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Alabama’s focus on IQ alone, noting that Supreme Court precedent allows consideration of adaptive functioning.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall defended the state’s position following arguments, saying Smith failed to prove intellectual disability and accusing lower courts of expanding Atkins beyond its intent.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in Hamm v. Smith by the end of June 2026.