WASHINGTON, USA — Inside the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, the question wasn’t just legal.
It was deeply human:
How do you decide if someone is intellectually disabled—so disabled that executing them would be cruel?
And more importantly…
Should a single number decide whether a person lives or dies?
The Rule That Changed Death Penalty History
More than 20 years ago, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision:
People with diminished mental capacity cannot be executed.
The court said doing so violates the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment.
But there was a catch.
The Supreme Court didn’t set one clear national definition of intellectual disability. Instead, it left the details up to the states.
And that’s where the controversy begins.
The Case at the Center: Joseph Smith
The case now before the court involves Joseph Smith, 55, a death row inmate in Alabama, sentenced to death for a 1997 murder.
Smith says he should be spared execution because he is intellectually disabled.
Over the years, he has taken five IQ tests, scoring between 72 and 78.
Under Alabama law, an IQ score of 70 or lower is considered evidence of intellectual disability.
Smith’s scores are above that line.
But here’s the pause.
A federal district court still ruled Smith was intellectually disabled—because it considered the margin of error in IQ tests and other real-life factors. An appeals court agreed.
Alabama appealed, pushing the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
Alabama’s Argument: The Numbers Don’t Add Up
Alabama’s lawyer, Robert Overing, told the justices that Smith’s multiple scores point one way only.
“Every identified method of handling multiple IQ scores favors the conclusion that Smith is not intellectually disabled,” Overing said.
To Alabama, the standard should be clear. Measurable. Consistent.
In other words: the number matters most.
Justice Jackson Pushes Back: “Why Only 70?”
Then came a sharp challenge from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
She questioned why the state’s test should be “simply and solely” an IQ cutoff at 70.
She pointed out something crucial:
The exact phrase “IQ score under 70” doesn’t appear in the court’s earlier rulings about intellectual disability.
And she warned the state may be turning this into an IQ-only decision in a way that doesn’t match Supreme Court precedent.
“I think what you’ve done is shift this to be all about the IQ test in a way that is not supported by our case law,” Jackson said.
It was a direct message:
The Constitution doesn’t talk in test scores.
Justice Alito: The Need for a Clear Standard
On the other side, Justice Samuel Alito raised a different concern.
He suggested there’s a need for something concrete—something stable—so the courts aren’t forced into a messy battle of experts every time.
He warned against a system where “everything is up for grabs,” and both sides bring experts to argue disability or no disability.
Because in death penalty cases, uncertainty isn’t academic.
It’s permanent.
Smith’s Lawyer: “Disability Is a Condition—Not a Score”
Smith’s attorney, Seth Waxman, argued that IQ scores alone should never be the final word.
He said intellectual disability is bigger than a number on paper.
Sub average intellectual functioning “is a condition, not a test score,” Waxman said.
It was a reminder that people live complex lives—shaped by learning, judgment, daily functioning, limitations, and struggle.
A test can measure something.
But can it measure everything that makes a person capable—or incapable—of full responsibility?
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling before the end of June.
Until then, one question hangs in the air:
When the law decides who can be executed… should it be decided by a single cutoff line—or by the full reality of a human mind?
