October Term 2016 · Docket 15-797
Does Texas law violate the Eighth Amendment by ignoring current medical standards for intellectual disability?
Texas law uses outdated medical standards to define intellectual disability. This conflicts with federal constitutional protections against executing such individuals.
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
Mr. Sloan argued that the Eighth Amendment prohibits executing people with intellectual disabilities.
Mr. Sloan noted that the lower court relied on specific Texas legal standards.
Mr. Keller stated that the side that brought the case conceded the use of older diagnostic manuals was acceptable.
Justice Kennedy questioned whether the presented question addresses the core issues of the case.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 44-32 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 44-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-10 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-12 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 18-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 18-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-4 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 34-14 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 34-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-24 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 28-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 28-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-34 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-10 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 38-46 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 38-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 4-8
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether Texas courts must apply current medical standards when determining if a defendant is intellectually disabled. the side that brought the case argues Texas law ignores these standards. The state argues its legal framework remains valid.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 44-32 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 44-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-10 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 34-14 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 34-14
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 29, 2016.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 16-18
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to require Texas to use current medical standards for intellectual disability determinations.
The state wants the Court to uphold the existing Texas legal framework for these determinations.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 44-32 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 44-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-10 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 34-14 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 34-14
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that the Eighth Amendment prohibits executing individuals with intellectual disabilities based on current medical definitions.
The state argues that its specific legal standards for defining intellectual disability remain constitutionally valid.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 44-32 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 44-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-10 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 34-14 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 34-14
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the side that brought the case’s broad objections align with the specific main legal question to the Court.
Justice Alito asked the side that brought the case to clarify how they can prevail on the specific main legal question.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-12 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 18-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 18-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-4 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-24 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 28-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 28-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-34 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-10 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 38-46 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 38-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 4-8
Why it matters
This case determines whether states must adopt current medical standards when assessing intellectual disability in death penalty cases. It defines the scope of constitutional protections for individuals facing execution. It clarifies the relationship between state law and federal constitutional mandates.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 44-32 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 44-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-10 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 34-14 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 34-14
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 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-12 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 18-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 18-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-4 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-24 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 28-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 28-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-34 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-10 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 26-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 26-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 38-46 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 38-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 4-8
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 44-32 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 44-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-10 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 34-14 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 34-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 44-32 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 44-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-10 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 34-14 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 34-14
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.