Opinion Summary: Hamm v. Smith | SCOTUS Declines to Dig into IQ Score Showdown

Hamm v. Smith | Case No. 24-872 | Decided: May 21, 2026 | Docket Link: Here

Overview: Death penalty case examining how courts evaluate multiple IQ scores when determining intellectual disability under Atkins. Court dismissed writ as improvidently granted after oral argument revealed parties never litigated the question below.

Question Presented: Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing Atkins claims.

Posture: Eleventh Circuit affirmed District Court finding Smith intellectually disabled using holistic approach.

Main Arguments:

• Alabama (Petitioner): (1) Courts must combine multiple IQ scores using statistical methods to determine whether defendant proves IQ of 70 or below by preponderance; (2) Standard error of measurement applies equally in both directions, preventing reliance solely on lowest score's error range; (3) Holistic approaches that consider adaptive functioning alongside IQ scores improperly expand Atkins protection beyond intellectual functioning threshold.
• Smith (Respondent): (1) Courts must assess multiple scores holistically, considering measurement error, expert testimony, and other evidence of intellectual functioning together; (2) Hall requires courts to account for standard error when scores fall near the threshold; (3) Professional standards recommend clinical judgment considering all available evidence rather than mechanical statistical formulas.

Holding: Per curiam opinion dismissed writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Justice Sotomayor wrote concurring opinion joined by Justice Jackson. Justice Thomas dissented. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justice Thomas, with Justice Gorsuch joining Parts I–III. No substantive ruling on merits.

Majority Reasoning: Per curiam provided no reasoning. Two sentences: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. It is so ordered." Dismissal leaves Eleventh Circuit decision protecting Smith from execution intact without Supreme Court guidance on evaluating multiple IQ scores.

Opinion: Here

Separate Opinions:

• Justice Sotomayor (concurring, joined by Jackson): Case presented poor vehicle because parties never litigated proposed methodologies below; Alabama's own expert used holistic approach Alabama now attacks; no state follows Alabama's proposed rule.
• Justice Thomas (dissenting): Would overrule Atkins entirely as improper judicial lawmaking lacking foundation in Eighth Amendment text or original understanding.
• Justice Alito (dissenting, joined by Thomas, with Gorsuch joining Parts I–III): Court should have provided guidance on recurring question; lower courts need direction on evaluating multiple scores; dismissal exacerbates confusion in Atkins doctrine.

Implications: Smith remains protected from execution. Courts nationwide lack Supreme Court guidance on multiple IQ scores beyond Hall and Moore principles. Holistic approach validated below remains permissible. Deep division among Justices signals potential vulnerability in Atkins doctrine. Defense attorneys gain validation for flexible methodologies; prosecutors cannot rely on rigid numerical cutoffs.

The Fine Print:

• Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
• Alabama Intellectual Disability Standard (Ex parte Perkins, 2002): Defendant must prove by preponderance: "(1) significantly subaverage intellectual functioning (an IQ of 70 or below); (2) significant or substantial deficits in adaptive behavior; (3) manifestation during the developmental period (before age 18)."

Primary Cases:

• Atkins v. Virginia (2002): Eighth Amendment categorically bars executing intellectually disabled individuals; states develop appropriate enforcement standards while Supreme Court establishes constitutional floors.
• Hall v. Florida (2014): Courts must consider standard error of measurement when evaluating IQ scores near 70 threshold; rigid cutoffs ignoring measurement error violate Eighth Amendment protections.