On May 21, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the state of Alabama’s appeal in the case of Hamm v. Smith. The principal issue concerned how courts should evaluate conflicting IQ scores in determining if an inmate is too intellectually disabled to execute without violating the the U.S. Constitution. This left in place lower court rulings that determined death row inmate Joseph Smith is ineligible for the death penalty.
Joseph Clifton Smith was convicted of capital murder in Alabama and sentenced to death. Under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Atkins v. Virginia, executing individuals with significant intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Smith had five IQ test scores over his life. Most were above 70, but his lowest was 72. When factoring in the test’s standard margin of error, this lowest score meant his true IQ could fall below 70—the threshold for intellectual disability. The prosecution argued that courts should use an aggregate or average of multiple IQ scores rather than focusing only on the lowest score and its margin of error.
The federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Smith’s favor. They determined that IQ scores alone are not dispositive. By reviewing both Smith’s test scores and the severe, real-world deficits in his daily adaptive functioning (e.g., severe learning disabilities and inability to manage basic life tasks), the courts concluded he met the diagnostic criteria for intellectual disability. The Supreme Court previously remanded the case in late 2024 to ensure the Eleventh Circuit wasn’t relying purely on a “one-low-score approach,” which the appeals court clarified it was not.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in late 2025 to re-examine the case and potentially clarify how courts should weigh multiple IQ scores in death penalty appeals. However, on May 21, 2026, the Court dismissed the case as “improvidently granted”. This means the Supreme Court ultimately declined to issue a broad, new ruling on how states must calculate IQ scores. As a result, the Eleventh Circuit’s holistic approach was upheld, sparing Smith from the death penalty and allowing his life sentence to stand.
Justice Sotomayor concurred, writing that the Court was right to avoid creating strict rules for handling multiple IQ scores, and that the lower court’s finding of intellectual disability was legally sound. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, detailed three key points in her concurrence:
First, she noted that the lower federal courts thoroughly reviewed the evidence and correctly determined that Smith had significantly subaverage intellectual functioning. She emphasized that their conclusion was, “at least, very plausible,” justifying the dismissal of the appeal. Second, Justice Sotomayor highlighted that attempting to rule on the specific “methodology” of assessing multiple IQ scores was inappropriate because that issue was never properly fleshed out or presented to the lower courts. Sotomayor pushed back against the dissenting justices who wanted strict, standardized judicial rules for evaluating IQ scores. She noted that the differences between methods used to assess multiple test results raise complicated clinical questions upon which experts themselves frequently disagree.
In his standalone dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the Court’s 5–4 decision to dismiss the case as “improvidently granted,” arguing it rewarded the inmate’s legal maneuvering. Thomas further urged that Atkins v. Virginia—which bars the execution of the intellectually disabled—should be overturned as a source of legal confusion, while also contending that the Court failed in its duty by not providing clear guidance to lower courts.
Justice Alito also dissented, arguing that the Court’s refusal to resolve how lower courts should evaluate multiple, conflicting IQ scores in death penalty cases only “exacerbates the confusion” surrounding this Eighth Amendment issue. He criticized the majority for remaining silent after previously agreeing to hear the case. He argued that leaving the lower court’s ruling in place without clarifying the standards fails to give states the necessary rules for determining intellectual disability. Justice Alito noted that lower courts have struggles to navigate Atkins v. Virginia and its progeny because the Supreme Court has refused to outline how states should weigh multiple IQ test results. By avoiding a definitive ruling, Alito argued that the Court leaves judicial standards unmoored, which ultimately increases confusion, encourages endless litigation, and creates unworkable frameworks for state courts. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined in parts of Justice Alito’s dissent.
A potential problem with overreliance on IQ scores is that death row inmates could fake low scores to avoid a death sentence. However, trained psychologists can usually spot faking. IQ tests have validity scales and embedded indicators that flag inconsistent effort or patterns of deliberate failure.
