SCOTUS Weighs IQ Score Results in Death Penalty Cases

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a case weighing how IQ scores should be evaluated in deciding if a death-row inmate is intellectually disabled and therefore, exempt from execution. 

The Details: Alabama is seeking to overturn lower-court rulings that blocked the execution of Joseph Clifton Smith, whose IQ scores and developmental history placed Smith in the low- to mid-70s. Alabama's attorney, Robert Overing, argued lower courts improperly focused on the potential error range of Smith's lowest score rather than weighing all five of his IQ tests together, effectively "changing the rules" of a previous ruling on intellectual disability. Several justices appeared open to clarifying how IQ scores should be weighed in capital cases, though they didn't signal agreement on a specific standard. 

For Context: Smith previously confessed to robbing and murdering Durk Van Dam in 1997. He has taken five IQ tests over four decades with scores ranging from 72 to 78. Lower courts had vacated Smith's death sentence after finding that a holistic assessment of his IQ scores, adaptive functioning and school records supported a conclusion of intellectual disability. The 2002 Atkins v. Virginia case barred the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities under the Eighth Amendment, but allowed states to define how disability is measured. Alabama law classifies intellectual disability as an IQ of 70 or below paired with significant adaptive deficits originating in childhood. 

How the Media Covered It: Outlets on the right generally highlighted Alabama's argument that lower courts misapplied standards for intellectual disability. ZeroHedge (Lean Right bias) and Washington Examiner (Lean Right) both heavily cited Overing and other attorneys and justices' weighing the decision. The Washington Examiner noted pushback when Smith's attorney argued "every court in every other state…understands raw observed test scores is not the definition of true IQ." An opinion in The Daily Caller (Right) stood out from other right-rated coverage by saying the case allows criminals a new defense: "Stupidity." Left-rated outlets largely framed the case as a threat to Atkins v. Virginia, often employing sarcasm or alarm about the Court's potential to weaken the law. Mother Jones (Left) quoted individuals who advocated for "holistic assessment" of a person's mental ability, while Slate (Left) mentioned "large numbers of those who commit capital crimes" have an intellectual disability. Compared to right-leaning outlets, these publications provided limited coverage of Smith's conviction, focusing instead on his history of intellectual disabilities. AllSides also noted Dam was only named in coverage from the Center, in The Daily Caller piece and in ABC News (Lean Left) coverage.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.