October Term 2001 · Docket 00-8452
Can states execute people with intellectual disabilities?
Daryl Atkins challenges Virginia's execution order. He argues the Eighth Amendment bans this practice. Virginia defends its right to carry out the sentence.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Atkins's lawyer cites individualized sentencing precedents.
Virginia's lawyer notes the practice dates to 1789.
Virginia's lawyer cites eighteen states allowing the practice.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-58
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 5-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Constitution. It pits individual rights against state sentencing authority.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-58
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-3
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 20, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 5-7
What each side wants
Atkins seeks a constitutional ban on executing people with intellectual disabilities.
Virginia seeks to keep the power to execute Atkins.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-58
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-3
What each side says
Atkins argues individualized sentencing rules forbid this execution.
Virginia argues long-standing practice supports the state's authority.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-58
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-3
What the justices asked
Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit executing people with intellectual disabilities?
How should courts assess disability during sentencing?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 5-7
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of capital punishment. It protects vulnerable individuals from state execution. It shapes sentencing standards nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-58
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-3
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 5-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-58
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-58
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-45 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-3
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.