Supreme Court Leaves Lower-Court Ban On Alabama Execution Intact
Dismissal of Hamm v. Smith leaves lower-court finding that Joseph Clifton Smith, 55, may be intellectually disabled and spares him from execution while legal standards for borderline IQ scores remain unresolved.
VoxThe Supreme Court hands a rare victory to a death row inmate
Mother JonesSupreme Court leaves rulings on executing the intellectually disabled in place
ABC NewsSupreme Court dismisses bid to execute inmate with borderline intellectual disability
Associated PressSupreme Court dismisses Alabama's bid to execute inmate with borderline intellectual disability
USA TODAYSupreme Court dismisses case, sparing life of convicted murderer with low IQ
Overview
On May 21 the Supreme Court dismissed Hamm v. Smith, leaving in place lower-court rulings that found Joseph Clifton Smith intellectually disabled and blocking Alabama from executing him.
The case was taken to decide how courts should treat multiple borderline IQ scores after Smith produced five IQ test results ranging from 72 to 78 and showed long-term academic deficits, his lawyers said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the record was insufficient to establish new rules, while Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Smith, 55, has been on death row roughly half his life after a fatal beating in 1997 to 1998, the case is 24-872, the Trump administration backed Alabama's execution bid, and 144 death sentences have been vacated for intellectual disability, the group said.
The dismissal preserves the appeals-court ruling that spared Smith and leaves unresolved how courts should weigh multiple IQ scores in death-penalty cases, keeping intact protections against executing the intellectually disabled for now.
Analysis
Center-leaning sources present this coverage neutrally: they prioritize procedural facts, quote court alignment, and provide relevant background on the defendant’s IQ scores and education without emotive language. Editorial choices emphasize legal precedent and process over moral judgment, and multiple viewpoints (majority/dissent) are reported, minimizing visible framing.