The Issue
Joseph Smith sat on Alabama’s death row with five IQ scores. Every one of them was above 70. Alabama said that settled it. The lower courts disagreed, looked at the whole record, and found Smith intellectually disabled. Alabama asked the Supreme Court to fix that. On May 21, 2026, the Court dismissed the case instead. No new rule. No national answer. Just a 5-4 decision to walk away. If you handle capital cases, or any case where intellectual disability could keep your client off death row, you need to understand what just happened, and what did not.
Background
Joseph Smith was convicted of first-degree murder in Alabama in 1998, before the Supreme Court decided Atkins v. Virginia. Atkins came down in 2002. It held that executing someone with an intellectual disability violates the Eighth Amendment. The Court did not define exactly what counts as intellectually disabled. It left that to the states.
Alabama built a three-part test. A defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, meaning an IQ of 70 or below. He must also show significant deficits in adaptive behavior. And those deficits must have shown up before age 18.
Smith filed his Atkins claim in 2005. Over the years, he took five IQ tests. The scores ranged from 72 to 78. All of them sat above Alabama’s 70 cutoff. But the lowest score carried a standard error of measurement that put its real range as low as 69. The district court did not stop at the numbers. It looked at adaptive functioning evidence too, weighed the whole record, and found Smith intellectually disabled. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Alabama took the fight to the Supreme Court. The question presented was narrow but consequential: when a capital defendant has multiple IQ scores, how should courts weigh them together? Alabama wanted a rule that treated Smith’s higher scores as effectively disqualifying. Smith wanted courts to keep doing what the district court did, looking at the full clinical picture, not just a number.
Strategic Implications
The Court heard argument in December 2025. Then, in May, it dismissed the writ as improvidently granted. Lawyers call that a DIG. It means the Court decided, after full briefing and argument, that it should never have taken the case in the first place.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, explained why. The record below did not present a clean vehicle for a sweeping rule about multiple IQ scores. The district court’s finding that Smith is intellectually disabled was a factual determination, not a legal error the Court could easily fix. Deciding the broader question on this record risked getting it wrong.
Justice Alito wrote the principal dissent. Chief Justice Roberts joined most of it. Justice Thomas joined part of it too, and then went further in a separate writing, calling for Atkins itself to be overruled. That is worth sitting with. One justice on the current Court is on record wanting to eliminate the constitutional bar on executing intellectually disabled defendants entirely.
Here is the practical result. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling stands. Smith remains protected from execution. Atkins remains good law nationwide. But no new rule tells courts in other states how to handle a defendant with multiple borderline IQ scores. That fight is not over. It is only postponed, waiting for a cleaner case to reach the Court.
For defense counsel, the lesson is not comfort. It is urgency. The Court came within one vote of taking up a rule that could have made borderline IQ scores easier to explain away. Build every Atkins claim now as if the Court will eventually decide the question, and decide it against a thin record. A single number is never enough. A full clinical picture is what wins. You can read the Court’s disposition in Hamm v. Smith for yourself.
How Does This Apply in Louisiana?
Louisiana still has the death penalty, and Louisiana still litigates intellectual disability claims in capital cases. The state has its own statutory procedure for resolving an Atkins claim before a case proceeds to trial as a capital matter. If you are litigating this issue in a Louisiana court, do not lean on Hamm v. Smith for a substantive rule. It does not give you one. Lean on Atkins, Hall v. Florida, and Moore v. Texas instead, all of which remain fully intact after this dismissal.
Think about a client named Cathy. Cathy is charged with a capital offense. She has taken three IQ tests over the years. Two came back at 74 and 76. One came back at 68. The state’s expert wants to average the scores and call it a day. That is exactly the maneuver Hall v. Florida forecloses. A single test’s standard error of measurement can put a score’s true range below 70 even when the number on paper reads higher. Do not let the state flatten three data points into one number and call it science.
Build the adaptive functioning record early. Hall and Moore both require courts to look past the IQ number alone. School records, work history, daily living skills, and expert clinical evaluation all matter. Retain a qualified expert who can walk the court through the standard error of measurement on every test administered, not just the ones favorable to your position.
And watch this issue at the Supreme Court level going forward. Hamm v. Smith proves the current Court is closely divided on how much deference states get in defining intellectual disability, and at least one justice wants to revisit Atkins entirely. The next case to reach the Court on this issue may not end in a dismissal. Preserve every argument now so your client’s case survives regardless of which way the law moves.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court change the rule for evaluating intellectual disability in death penalty cases?
No. The Court dismissed Hamm v. Smith without deciding the underlying question. Atkins v. Virginia, Hall v. Florida, and Moore v. Texas all remain fully in effect.
What happened to Joseph Smith?
The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling that Smith is intellectually disabled stands. He remains protected from execution under Atkins.
Can a state execute someone based on IQ scores that are all technically above 70?
Not automatically. Hall v. Florida requires courts to account for the standard error of measurement, and courts must also consider adaptive functioning evidence, not IQ numbers alone.
Is the death penalty still legal in Louisiana?
Yes. Louisiana retains capital punishment, and Louisiana courts continue to apply Atkins in determining whether a capital defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution.
Why does a case that was dismissed still matter?
Because it shows how close the current Court is to revisiting Atkins entirely, and it signals that defense counsel cannot count on a favorable national rule. Every Atkins claim needs a complete, well-documented clinical record now.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court had a chance to make it easier for states to execute defendants with borderline IQ scores. It declined, but only barely, and only for now. Joseph Smith keeps his life. The broader question is still open. If you are building an intellectual disability claim for a client facing execution, do not wait for the Court to settle this. Build the record so complete that no future rule can take your client’s life.
Portions of this article were prepared with the assistance of a generative AI drafting tool. All legal and factual assertions have been reviewed and verified by counsel.