The U.S. Supreme Court just waded into a legal quagmire that could decide whether a death row inmate in Alabama gets a pass based on shaky intellectual disability claims.
The case, known as Hamm v. Smith, centers on whether states like Alabama can stick to hard IQ numbers or must entertain a broader, more subjective look at a convict’s mental capacity when determining death penalty exemptions.
In 1997, Joseph Clifton Smith was convicted of brutally killing Durk Van Dam with a hammer in Mobile County, robbing him of $150, boots, and tools.
Smith, now 55, has spent nearly half his life on death row, while his co-defendant, Larry Reid, took a plea deal for life in prison.
Smith’s background paints a grim picture.
He was placed in learning-disabled classes, dropped out after seventh grade, and at the time of the crime, could only do math at a kindergarten level and read at a fourth-grade level.
As a child, he was diagnosed with what was then termed “mental retardation.”
Fast forward to 2021, when a federal judge called Smith’s case “close” and vacated his death sentence, citing intellectual disability concerns.
Alabama, however, isn’t buying it, pointing to Smith’s five IQ tests ranging from 72 to 78, none below the state’s legal threshold of 70.
The state argues that a strict IQ cutoff should settle the matter, while Smith’s legal team, led by former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, pushes for a “holistic” approach that considers developmental and adaptive struggles.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard two hours of intense arguments in Hamm v. Smith, with no clear winner emerging from the fray.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, however, seemed to tilt toward Alabama’s side, showing skepticism about opening the door to endless appeals.
Justice Alito warned that siding with Smith could “create a situation where everything is up for grabs in every case,” per The Associated Press.
Alito is arguing that death row could become a revolving door of legal loopholes driven by progressive reinterpretations of science.
Alabama’s lawyer, Robert M. Overing, doubled down, stating:
“There is no way that he can prove an IQ below 70.”
This case isn’t just about Smith, however, and could end up setting a national precedent.
It’s a potential game-changer for death penalty law nationwide, especially in the 20-plus states that lean on strict IQ thresholds.
Disability rights groups are sounding alarms, calling an IQ-only standard “faulty,” but one wonders if their push for broader evidence is less about justice and more about stalling rightful punishment.
The Supreme Court’s 2002 Atkins v. Virginia ruling banned executing the intellectually disabled, and later decisions in 2014 and 2017 urged states to look beyond IQ in tight cases, decisions Thomas and Alito dissented on.
Their current stance seems consistent with a no-nonsense view that law shouldn’t bend to every new clinical fad.
Alabama’s law defines intellectual disability as an IQ of 70 or below, coupled with significant adaptive deficits before age 18, but the state insists Smith doesn’t qualify.
The core issue in Hamm v. Smith is whether states must dig into factors beyond raw IQ scores, like behavior and development, or stick to hard data.
With Smith’s scores consistently above the cutoff, Alabama’s position feels like common sense over courtroom overreach.
Legal experts predict the ruling, expected by early summer 2026, could reshape death penalty appeals across the country, especially in states eager to limit exemptions.
If the court sides with Smith, expect a flood of challenges; if it backs Alabama, it might finally put some guardrails on endless litigation.
At the end of the day, this case balances justice for a horrific crime against the risk of undermining clear legal standards.
While empathy for Smith’s struggles is understandable, the law can’t be a moving target swayed by activist agendas; it must stand firm on facts, not feelings.
READ MORE – Supreme Court Poised to Back Trump in FTC Firing Case
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.