Hamm, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections v. Smith
No. 23-167 · Decided November 4, 2024 · vacated and remanded
How should courts evaluate multiple IQ scores when determining if an offender is intellectually disabled? The Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case to clarify whether its decision relied on a per se rule regarding standard-error ranges or a holistic approach to evaluating multiple IQ scores.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Parties — Petitioner: HAMM, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · Respondent: SMITH
Vote & lineupPer Curiam
Who prevailed — The petitioner prevailed in having the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit vacated, although the case was remanded for further clarification rather than decided on the merits.
The question

How should courts evaluate multiple IQ scores when determining if an offender is intellectually disabled? Specifically, does the lower end of the standard-error range for an offender's lowest score serve as a dispositive per se rule? Or must courts employ a more holistic approach that considers all relevant evidence and expert testimony?

Petitioner's argument
  • Not stated.
  • Not stated.
  • Not stated.
Respondent's argument
  • Respondent argues that he is intellectually disabled, which would preclude the imposition of the death sentence under *Atkins v. Virginia*, 536 U. S. 304 (2002).
  • Respondent contends that his IQ could be as low as 69 when considering the standard error of measurement for his lowest recorded score of 72.
  • Respondent asserts that his lowest IQ score is not an outlier when evaluated in conjunction with his other four scores, which range from 72 to 78.
The decision
  • The Court vacated the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration.
  • The Court relied on *Atkins v. Virginia*, 536 U. S. 304 (2002) regarding the legal standards for intellectual disability in death penalty cases.
  • The Court cited *Hall v. Florida*, 572 U. S. 701, 714 (2014), noting that "when a person has taken multiple tests, each separate score must be assessed" while considering the standard error of measurement.
  • The Court highlighted that *Hall v. Florida* characterized the joint analysis of multiple IQ scores as a "complicated endeavor."
  • The Court observed that it had not previously provided specific instructions on how to evaluate multiple IQ scores in *Moore v. Texas*, 581 U. S. 1 (2017) or *Brumfeld v. Cain*, 576 U. S. 305 (2015).
  • The Court found the Eleventh Circuit's opinion ambiguous because it could be interpreted as establishing a per se rule that the lower end of the standard-error range for the lowest score is dispositive.
  • Alternatively, the Court noted the lower court's opinion could be read as supporting a "holistic approach" that incorporates relevant evidence and expert testimony.
  • The Court concluded that because the State's petition for certiorari may depend on which of these two interpretations is correct, the Eleventh Circuit must clarify the basis for its decision.
Separate opinions
THOMAS, concurring in the judgment, joined by GORSUCH
  • Argues that the Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for full argument rather than issuing a summary remand.
Read the full opinion on supremecourt.gov (PDF) →