October Term 2013 · Docket 12-10882
Can Florida set a fixed IQ cutoff to deny mental retardation claims?
Florida argues a fixed IQ score proves normal intelligence. the side that brought the case argues this method ignores adaptive behavior deficits.
Verified source milestones
- — 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
Mr. Waxman argued the Constitution bars executing persons with mental retardation.
Mr. Winsor argued the Florida Supreme Court decision is consistent with Atkins.
questions_in_argument
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Florida uses a strict IQ cutoff to deny mental retardation claims. the side that brought the case argues this method ignores adaptive behavior deficits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 3, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
Florida wants the Court to affirm the lower-court decision.
the side that brought the case wants the Court to reverse the lower-court decision.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What each side says
Florida argues the fixed IQ cutoff is a reasonable legislative judgment.
the side that brought the case argues the Constitution bars executing persons with mental retardation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the standard error of measuring refers to a degree of confidence.
Justice Alito asked if the Constitution allows a state to establish a hard cutoff like 76.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-7
Why it matters
This dispute determines how states define mental retardation for death penalty eligibility. It affects the application of the Eighth Amendment to capital cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
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 10, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-7
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 26, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
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.