The Supreme Court Hands a Rare Victory to a Death Row Inmate

The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss Hamm v. Smith without issuing a ruling on whether an Alabama inmate can be executed for intellectual disability may seem like a victory for death row inmates, but it reveals a more complex dynamic: a nuanced dance of judicial politics.

At its core, the case revolves around the issue of intellectual disability in capital punishment. In 2002’s Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities is unconstitutional. However, the justices appear to have struggled with this question in Hamm. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurring opinion suggests that Alabama may have lost the case due to inept lawyering on its part.

A closer look at the facts of Hamm reveals a more interesting dynamic: Smith’s IQ tests show scores ranging from 70-80, raising questions about whether he qualifies as intellectually disabled under the Atkins framework. Courts consider an IQ below 70 a benchmark for intellectual disability, but Smith’s test results don’t clearly fall into that category.

The Republican Justices’ Shift in Position

The opinions in Hamm offer some surprises. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has previously expressed hardline views on the death penalty, seemed to chart a more moderate course in this case. However, his opinion appeared isolated from other justices’, and he neither joined Thomas’s dissent nor Alito’s opinion.

Meanwhile, only Justice Clarence Thomas called for Atkins to be overruled, while Alito focused on the minutiae of the Hamm case without making broader attacks on Atkins. The fact that three justices – Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – remained silent in this case makes it difficult to evaluate where the full Court stands on Atkins.

A Glimpse into the Republican Justices’ Minds

The opinions of the Republican justices are particularly noteworthy. While they have historically opposed Atkins, only Thomas called for its overruling. Alito’s opinion, which was joined by four justices, focused on the unusual facts present in Hamm and did not make a broader attack on Atkins. This shift suggests that at least some constitutional protections against capital punishment may be safe – for now.

However, this development should also raise concerns about the Court’s willingness to revisit past decisions. The fact that Gorsuch seemed to soften his stance on the death penalty in this case, only to have his opinion appear isolated from others’, raises questions about the stability of the Court’s position on Atkins.

A New Era for Death Penalty Cases?

The implications of Hamm v. Smith go beyond the specific case itself. The Court’s decision to dismiss the case without issuing a ruling suggests that it is willing to exercise caution in constitutional questions that are not fully vetted by lower courts. This approach may be a welcome development, as it ensures that the justices do not hand down uncorrectable errors.

However, it also raises concerns about the Court’s willingness to revisit past decisions. The fact that Alito focused on the minutiae of Hamm without making broader attacks on Atkins suggests that he is trying to find a way to uphold the constitutionality of the death penalty while still respecting the Atkins framework.

What’s Next for Intellectual Disability in Capital Punishment?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hamm v. Smith may be seen as a victory for death row inmates, but it also reveals the complexities and nuances of judicial politics. As the Court navigates this issue, one thing is clear: intellectual disability will continue to play a central role in capital punishment cases.

In the coming months and years, we can expect to see more cases that challenge the Atkins framework. The Supreme Court’s decision in Hamm v. Smith may be just the beginning of a new era for death penalty cases – one that raises important questions about intellectual disability, constitutional protections, and the stability of the Court’s position on these issues.

The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss Hamm v. Smith without issuing a ruling sends a clear message: the justices are willing to exercise caution in constitutional questions that are not fully vetted by lower courts. However, this approach also raises concerns about the Court’s willingness to revisit past decisions – and the implications of this shift for intellectual disability in capital punishment cases.