Fine Line Between Life-and-Death

Varun Mekala

December 2025

A Supreme Court case is making headlines that has literal life-or-death implications, but what it’s really all about is how we, as a society, use our most fundamental Constitutional rights on behalf of our most vulnerable fellow human beings. It’s called Hamm v Smith (24-872), and it’s a fight that is so, so important. 

Because what’s at the heart of this Supreme Court Case is essentially this: How do we, as a society, figure out whether a death row inmate is "intellectually disabled" enough to prevent him from being put to death under our Eighth Amendment, which protects us from "cruel and unusual punishment"?! And the problem with this is that the entire process is a complicated mess involving IQ scores, human dignity, the existence of a Supreme Court case from the 1960s, and a whole lot more.

It’s the case of Joseph Clifton Smith. When Joseph Clifton Smith, a capital murderer from Alabama, is concerned, because back in the 1960s, our Supreme Court Case, Atkins v. Virginia, produced a highly necessary ruling that executing individuals who are "intellectually disabled" constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment," which is essentially taking a back seat to our most fundamental rights! But here’s the problem with that, because Joseph Smith’s case has a complicated history involving a series of IQ Tests that he’s taken over a series of decades, which have come back with scores that vary from 72 to 78.

Wait, the cutoff point for intellectual disability is about 70, right?Right, but here’s the thing, because even though that’s what it is, IQ Tests have a "margin of error," which is typically a 5 point spread, which means that his score of 72 might really be 67, which would make him most definitely "intellectually disabled"! 

And now, he’s been challenged on his use of the death penalty by no less than the State of Alabama led by a Department of Corrections official named John Hamm, whose entire purpose is basically to say, "Look, his IQ scores are all high, above 70! You can't necessarily go with the lowest score, because that's what he’s trying to do with his ‘high score rule’ that is specifically dependent on the numbers themselves.” 

So far, what’s most necessary here is that a voice is speaking loudly on behalf of that which is most human inside a Supreme Court Case that has literally life-or-death implications, because what’s been argued on his behalf is a "holistic" assessment. They cite the Supreme Court’s own precedents in cases such as Hall v. Florida and Moore v.Texas, which held that intellectual disability is a trait, not a number. 

Let’s talk about Smith himself. Some background on Smith’s life: he was assigned to learning-disabled and "educally mentally retarded" classes in school; he never graduated, but he did drop out after seventh grade; at the age of offense, he read at a fourth-grade level, spelled at a third-grade level, and performed math at a kindergarten level. It is pretty clear he is "intellectually disabled”.

The Supreme Court is specifically asking, "Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim. This is a massively portentous question. If they rule on behalf of Alabama, they are essentially giving states a free signal to go ahead and use strict, numeric standards, no matter how arbitrary, how contrary to professional standards or how close to error IQ tests are. In effect, this gives the number 70 the status of "eye-poppingly unconstitutional 'can kill' cutoff point," which is clearly what the Supreme Court intends to prevent. 

If they rule on behalf of the Fourth Circuit, though, they essentially make a huge implication that justice means, means, means a complete, thorough, complete assessment of a complete human being, his life, his capacities, his potentialities, his intellect, his entire history—not merely his highest, most available score from his IQ tests.This is a huge safeguard against the cold-bloodedness of state-executed capital punishment. We are living through a critical moment. Are they going to take the path that is led by solid science, sound reason, interpretation, great jurisprudence, and an enlightened sense of American justice? Or are they going to make the IQ cutoff solid? Stay tuned.