Supreme Court spares life of convicted murderer with low IQ

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: USA Today

Politics * Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court spares life of convicted murderer with low IQ

Disability rights groups closely followed the case because of potential implications for disabled people outside the criminal justice system.

Maureen Groppe
USA TODAY
May 21, 2026, 10:24 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on May 21 declined to revisit the standard for when an intellectual disability prevents the death penalty, ruling they should not have taken case about whether Alabama can execute a convicted murderer whose intellectual disability was disputed.

Their dismissal leaves in place a lower court's ruling that Joseph Smith, 55, has sufficient cognitive deficits to render him ineligible to be put to death for beating a man to death in 1997.

Disability rights groups had been closely following the case, in part because of its potential implications beyond the criminal context. ... People diagnosed as intellectually disabled can qualify for a variety of government support services, including special education, health care and income support.

{snip}


Joseph Clifton Smith, sentenced for murder on Oct. 16, 1998 Alabama Department of Corrections

{snip}

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/05/21/supreme-court-iq-death-penalty-alabama-joseph-smith/87894697007/

[JT45242]

1. 5-4 ruling -- Handmaid and Beer Bong less bloodthirsty than the rest

Alito was, of course, all in on killing the dude.
RV bribe recipient wants the whole notion of disability removed from the discussion -- cause that way you can kill more.

It sickens me that we are the only truly industrialized country (not counting Arab monarchies or the Chines dictatorship in that list) that still executes people routinely.

[SSJVegeta]

3. Has handmaid ever voted to execute somebody?

I get the impression she is pro life in both ways, as consistent with her catholicism.

[JT45242]

7. Yes. Part of the appeals court that rushed the first federal execution in 17 years for TCF in 2020

Likely a loyalty confirmation for her later appointment. To prove she wasn't so Catholic that she would re use herself from excecutions as many Catholic judges had started to do.

Overruled a stay by judge chutkan.

[SSJVegeta]

8. Ugggghh

What are principles if not something to be betrayed

[Ray Bruns]

4. "RV bribe recipient"

[Martin68]

2. A drop in the bucket.

[nuxvomica]

5. Alito's dissent essentially favored procrustean solutions

From the link:

In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the court ignored its obligation to provide "workable rules for capital cases.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas agreed.

So they essentially believe procrustean solutions are valid, yet somehow they find judicial ethics rules too procrustean for them. The term comes from the Greek myth of Procrustes, who invited guests to sleep in an iron bed. Guests who were too short to fit the bed, were brutally stretched while those too tall had their legs chopped to fit. In the end, Theseus punished Procrustes by forcing him into the iron bed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. Thomas dissented separately to remind everyone he wants to (and would) write the 8th Amendment out of the Constitution.

Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

Thomas dissented separately to remind everyone that he wants to — and would — write the Eighth Amendment out of the Constitution.

‪Chris Geidner‬
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬
· 2h
Usually, we wouldn't know the vote in a DIG, but there are three writings accompanying the DIG in Hamm v. Smith.

Sotomayor, joined by Jackson, wrote a concurring opinion.

Alito wrote a dissent, joined by Thomas and partially joined by Roberts and Gorsuch.

Thomas also wrote his own dissent.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s decision to dismiss the writ of cer-
tiorari as improvidently granted. I write separately for two
reasons. First, based on the evidentiary record and how
this litigation proceeded below, I explain why the Court
should not and cannot use this case to address how courts
must analyze multiple IQ scores under Atkins v. Virginia,
536 U. S. 304 (2002). Second, I point out how the principal
dissent’s discussion of this Court’s precedents and the sci-
entific consensus about how courts should evaluate multi-
ple IQ scores is incomplete and potentially misleading.
ALT

ALITO, J., dissenting
* * *
The lower courts’ IQ analysis was flawed at every stage
of this litigation. Because the courts below have yet to pro-
vide a sound basis for granting Smith Atkins relief, the
Court should reverse the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and re-
mand this case for further proceedings.
ALT

THOMAS, J., dissenting
III
“Some of our most ‘egregious’ cases have been those in
which we have granted relief based on an unfounded Eighth
Amendment claim,” and Atkins is certainly near the top of
the list. Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. 863, 905–906 (2015)
(THOMAS, J., concurring). Atkins’s rejection of “the histori-
cal meaning of the [Eighth] Amendmen[t],” see Ramos, 590
U. S., at 106, has denied the justice governments have
given to murder victims from time immemorial, Glossip,
576 U. S., at 905–906 (THOMAS, J., concurring). And it de-
grades the mildly intellectually disabled by putting them
“on a level with . . . infants, imbeciles, and domestic ani-
mals”—those who cannot “‘have known better.’” C. S.
Lewis, The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, 13 Issues
in Religion and Psychotherapy 147, 151 (1987); see Atkins,
536 U. S., at 318, 319–320. In a future case, the Court
should overrule Atkins and restore “the Cruel and Unusual
Punishments Clause’s fixed meaning in resolving any chal-
lenge brought under it.” Grants Pass, 603 U. S., at 562
(THOMAS, J., concurring). For now, I respectfully dissent.
ALT
10:47 AM · May 21, 2026

Thomas dissented separately to remind everyone that he wants to — and would — write the Eighth Amendment out of the Constitution.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-05-21T14:47:11.577Z

Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

Usually, we wouldn't know the vote in a DIG, but there are three writings accompanying the DIG in Hamm v. Smith.

Sotomayor, joined by Jackson, wrote a concurring opinion.

Alito wrote a dissent, joined by Thomas and partially joined by Roberts and Gorsuch.

Thomas also wrote his own dissent.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s decision to dismiss the writ of cer-
tiorari as improvidently granted. I write separately for two
reasons. First, based on the evidentiary record and how
this litigation proceeded below, I explain why the Court
should not and cannot use this case to address how courts
must analyze multiple IQ scores under Atkins v. Virginia,
536 U. S. 304 (2002). Second, I point out how the principal
dissent’s discussion of this Court’s precedents and the sci-
entific consensus about how courts should evaluate multi-
ple IQ scores is incomplete and potentially misleading.
ALT

ALITO, J., dissenting
* * *
The lower courts’ IQ analysis was flawed at every stage
of this litigation. Because the courts below have yet to pro-
vide a sound basis for granting Smith Atkins relief, the
Court should reverse the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and re-
mand this case for further proceedings.
ALT

THOMAS, J., dissenting
III
“Some of our most ‘egregious’ cases have been those in
which we have granted relief based on an unfounded Eighth
Amendment claim,” and Atkins is certainly near the top of
the list. Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. 863, 905–906 (2015)
(THOMAS, J., concurring). Atkins’s rejection of “the histori-
cal meaning of the [Eighth] Amendmen[t],” see Ramos, 590
U. S., at 106, has denied the justice governments have
given to murder victims from time immemorial, Glossip,
576 U. S., at 905–906 (THOMAS, J., concurring). And it de-
grades the mildly intellectually disabled by putting them
“on a level with . . . infants, imbeciles, and domestic ani-
mals”—those who cannot “‘have known better.’” C. S.
Lewis, The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, 13 Issues
in Religion and Psychotherapy 147, 151 (1987); see Atkins,
536 U. S., at 318, 319–320. In a future case, the Court
should overrule Atkins and restore “the Cruel and Unusual
Punishments Clause’s fixed meaning in resolving any chal-
lenge brought under it.” Grants Pass, 603 U. S., at 562
(THOMAS, J., concurring). For now, I respectfully dissent.
ALT
10:33 AM · May 21, 2026

Usually, we wouldn't know the vote in a DIG, but there are three writings accompanying the DIG in Hamm v. Smith.

Sotomayor, joined by Jackson, wrote a concurring opinion.

Alito wrote a dissent, joined by Thomas and partially joined by Roberts and Gorsuch.

Thomas also wrote his own dissent.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-05-21T14:33:44.044Z

Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

Here's the DIG and opinions: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-872_ec8f.pdf
www.supremecourt.gov
10:37 AM · May 21, 2026

Here's the DIG and opinions: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-05-21T14:37:00.892Z