Hamm, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections v. Smith
No. 24-872 · Decided May 21, 2026 · dismissed
Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing a claim that a defendant is intellectually disabled. The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving the lower court's decision intact.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT · Argued December 10, 2025
Parties — Petitioner: HAMM, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · Respondent: SMITH
Vote & lineupPer Curiam
Who prevailed — The respondent prevailed because the Court dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the lower court's finding that he is intellectually disabled and cannot be executed.
The question

Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing a claim that a defendant is intellectually disabled. This inquiry arises under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities. The Court specifically sought to determine if a specific methodology exists for aggregating multiple IQ scores.

Petitioner's argument
  • A factfinding court must consider the "cumulative effect" of multiple IQ scores, meaning the scores must be "combine[d] to prove an IQ of 70 or below."
  • Courts could use several methods to achieve this, such as taking the median, calculating a composite score, taking the average, examining the "overlap among each score's error range," or looking only at the highest score.
  • The District Court erred by failing to use a specific method to combine scores to determine if the respondent proved significantly subaverage intellectual functioning.
  • The respondent failed to prove an IQ of 70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence.
Respondent's argument
  • Courts must assess multiple IQ scores "holistically," which includes considering those scores in light of other evidence—particularly expert testimony—regarding the scores' validity and meaning.
  • A holistic analysis should include other evidence of the claimant's intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior.
  • The District Court's approach was consistent with the medical community's diagnostic framework and the Court's precedents in *Hall v. Florida* and *Moore v. Texas*.
  • The evidence, including the respondent's adaptive deficits, supports the finding that he is intellectually disabled and cannot constitutionally be executed.
The decision
  • The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
  • The Court declined to provide a specific formula or methodology for weighing multiple IQ scores.
  • The Court noted that all parties agree the Eighth Amendment does not prescribe a single formula for this analysis.
  • The Court relied on *Atkins v. Virginia*, which left it to the States to "develo[p] appropriate ways to enforce" the limitation on executing the intellectually disabled.
  • The Court found that the litigation below did not focus on whether a precise methodology exists that courts must use.
  • The Court determined it lacked an evidentiary record or lower-court decisions trained on the specific theories now advanced by the parties.
  • The Court concluded it should not provide more detailed guidance beyond what its previous cases have already stated.
Separate opinions
SOTOMAYOR, concurring, joined by JACKSON
  • Argues the Court cannot provide guidance because the parties agree there is no single approach and the record is insufficient.
  • Contends the District Court's "holistic" approach is consistent with *Hall v. Florida*, *Moore v. Texas*, and the medical community's diagnostic framework, such as the *APA Handbook of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities*.
  • Notes that the factual finding of intellectual disability is not clearly erroneous under the standard set in *Anderson v. Bessemer City*.
THOMAS, dissenting, joined by nobody
  • Argues *Atkins v. Virginia* should be overruled because it is irreconcilable with the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment.
  • Claims the Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual methods of punishment" (citing *Grants Pass v. Johnson*) and that executing someone based on IQ is not a "method" of execution.
  • Asserts the respondent is not intellectually disabled because he reads at an 11th-grade level and never scored below 71 on an IQ test.
ALITO, dissenting, joined by THOMAS, and by CHIEF JUSTICE and GORSUCH as to Parts I, III, and IV
  • Argues the Court failed its obligation to provide workable rules for capital cases and should have provided guidance on analyzing multiple IQ scores.
  • Proposes sound methods for estimating "true" IQ, such as calculating a "composite score," taking the "median value," or assessing "central tendency," citing the *APA Handbook*.
  • Contends the lower courts' "one-low-score" and "holistic" approaches were statistically and psychologically unsound and contravened *Moore v. Texas*.
Read the full opinion on supremecourt.gov (PDF) →