United States Judgment

Supreme Court of the United States

Hamm v. Smith

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's judgment and remanded because the Eleventh Circuit's opinion was ambiguous whether it applied a per se rule treating the lower bound of the standard‑error range for the lowest IQ score as dispositive or a holistic evaluation of multiple IQ scores, and clarification of the basis for the decision is required.

Court disposition

Certiorari granted; judgment of the Eleventh Circuit vacated; case remanded to the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

Orders

  • Certiorari granted
  • Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated
  • Case remanded to the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration consistent with this opinion
  • Smith's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted

02

Material facts

Parties

Hamm, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

Petitioner

Joseph Clifton Smith

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Lowest Reported Full‑scale IQ Score: 72
  • Highest Reported Full‑scale IQ Score: 78
  • Lower Bound of Standard‑error Range for Lowest Score Asserted by District Court: 69

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Petition for Writ of Certiorari From Eleventh Circuit Review of Vacatur of a Death Sentence / Certiorari Granted; Judgment Vacated and Remanded to the Eleventh Circuit for Further Consideration

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Smith argued he is intellectually disabled under Atkins because his five full‑scale IQ scores (ranging 72–78) when assessed with the standard error of measurement make his IQ as low as 69 and his lowest score is not an outlier.
Respondent
The State argued that Smith's higher IQ scores above 70 preclude a finding of intellectual disability and that the lower end of the standard‑error range for a single low score should not be treated as dispositive absent a proper, constrained analysis.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)

    Execution of individuals with intellectual disability is prohibited under the Eighth Amendment.

  2. 02

    Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014)

    When a person has taken multiple IQ tests, each separate score must be assessed with consideration of the standard error of measurement; joint analysis of multiple scores is complicated.

  3. 03

    Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. 1 (2017) and Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (2015)

    Courts must apply the Constitution's standards rather than outdated medical standards in assessing intellectual disability; no single method for evaluating multiple IQ scores has been prescribed by this Court.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's judgment and remanded because the Eleventh Circuit's opinion was ambiguous whether it applied a per se rule treating the lower bound of the standard‑error range for the lowest IQ score as dispositive or a holistic evaluation of multiple IQ scores, and clarification of the basis for the decision is required.

Obiter and limits

  • The Eleventh Circuit's opinion can be read to create a per se rule treating the lower bound of the SEM range for a lowest IQ score as dispositive.
  • The Eleventh Circuit also approvingly cited the district court's determination that the lowest score was not an outlier when considered with higher scores, which suggests a holistic approach.
  • Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have granted certiorari and set the case for argument.

Court disposition

Certiorari granted; judgment of the Eleventh Circuit vacated; case remanded to the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

  • Certiorari granted
  • Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated
  • Case remanded to the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration consistent with this opinion
  • Smith's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of the United States · 4 November 2024

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of the United States

Judgment· 4 November 2024

604 U.S. 1

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 604 U. S. Part 1 Pages 1–3

OFFICIAL REPORTS

OF

THE SUPREME COURT November 4, 2024 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.

CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 2024 HAMM, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. SMITH on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit Page Proof Pending Publication No. 23–167. Decided November 4, 2024 The District Court below vacated the death sentence of Joseph Clifton Smith after concluding that he is intellectually disabled. Smith has ob- tained fve full-scale IQ scores, ranging from 72 to 78, and his claim of intellectual disability depended in part on whether his IQ is 70 or below. The District Court found that Smith's IQ could be as low as 69 given the standard error of measurement for his lowest score of 72, and further determined that Smith's lowest score is not an outlier when considered together with his higher scores. The Eleventh Circuit affrmed. Held: The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit is vacated. The Eleventh Circuit's opinion might be read to suggest a per se rule that the lower end of the standard-error range for an offender's lowest score is disposi- tive. Alternatively, the Eleventh Circuit's opinion might be read to suggest a more holistic approach that considers the relevant evidence, including as appropriate any relevant expert testimony. The case is remanded to the Eleventh Circuit to clarify the basis for its decision. Certiorari granted; 67 F. 4th 1335, vacated and

remanded. Per Curiam. Joseph Clifton Smith was sentenced to death for the mur- der of Durk Van Dam. The U. S. District Court for the 1 2 HAMM v. SMITH Per Curiam Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sen- tence after concluding that he is intellectually disabled. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002). Smith has obtained fve full-scale IQ scores, ranging from 72 to 78. Smith's claim of intellectual disability depended in part on whether his IQ is 70 or below. The District Court found that Smith's IQ could be as low as 69 given the standard error of measure- ment for his lowest score of 72. The District Court then vacated the death sentence, and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affrmed. Smith v. Commissioner, Ala. Dept. of Corrections, 67 F. 4th 1335, 1354 (2023). Analyzing Smith's intellectual functioning requires evalu- ating his various IQ scores. In Hall v. Florida, 572 U. S. 701, 714 (2014), this Court stated that “when a person has taken multiple tests, each separate score must be assessed” considering the standard error of measurement. The Court further noted that “the analysis of multiple IQ scores jointly Page Proof Pending Publication is a complicated endeavor.” Ibid. This Court has not spec- ifed how courts should evaluate multiple IQ scores. See ibid.; Moore v. Texas, 581 U. S. 1 (2017); Brumfeld v. Cain, 576 U. S. 305

(2015). The Eleventh Circuit's opinion can be read in two ways. On the one hand, the Eleventh Circuit's opinion might be read to afford conclusive weight to the fact that the lower end of the standard-error range for Smith's lowest IQ score is 69. That analysis would suggest a per se rule that the lower end of the standard-error range for an offender's low- est score is dispositive. On the other hand, the Eleventh Circuit also approvingly cited the District Court's determi- nation that Smith's lowest score is not an outlier when con- sidered together with his higher scores. That analysis would suggest a more holistic approach to multiple IQ scores that considers the relevant evidence, including as appro- priate any relevant expert testimony. The Eleventh Circuit's opinion is unclear on this point, and this Court's ultimate assessment of any petition for certio- Cite as: 604 U. S. 1 (2024) 3 Per Curiam rari by the State may depend on the basis for the Eleventh Circuit's decision. Therefore, we grant the petition for cer- tiorari and Smith's motion for leave to proceed in forma pau- peris, vacate the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, and re- mand the case for further consideration consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for argument. Page Proof Pending

Publication Reporter’s Note The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of Page Proof Pending Publication publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court. Other revisions may include adjustments to formatting, cap- tions, citation form, and any errant punctuation. The following additional edits were made: None

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)

Case cited

Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014)

Case cited

Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. 1 (2017)

Case cited

Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (2015)

Case cited

Smith v. Commissioner, Ala. Dept. of Corrections, 67 F.4th 1335 (11th Cir. 2023)

Case cited

Hamm v. Smith, 604 U.S. 1 (2024)

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.