October Term 2025 · Docket 24-872
Can Alabama Execute Joseph Smith After Courts Found His IQ Scores Below the State's Threshold?
Alabama seeks to execute Joseph Smith for a murder committed nearly 30 years ago. Courts found his IQ scores fall under 70. The dispute is whether Alabama's intellectual disability standard still lets the state carry out that death sentence.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion 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. Overing argued first for Alabama. He said nothing in the Eighth Amendment bars the sentence Smith received for murdering Durk Van Dam nearly 30 years ago. He argued Smith is not intellectually disabled.
Mr. Graver argued for Smith's side. He said states have significant discretion under Atkins in defining intellectual disability and what defendants must prove. He argued Smith has not shown a new sentence would do any good.
Mr. Waxman clarified Smith's side's reading of Alabama law. He said the statutory standard is substantially subaverage intellectual functioning. He argued courts improperly use the term true IQ of 70 or below.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 53-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 53-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 55-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 55-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 128, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 128, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 47-45 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 47-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 55-37 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 55-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 49-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 49-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 90, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 90, lines 11-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Supreme Court heard the case Hamm v. Smith. The case tests how states define intellectual disability when deciding whether the Eighth Amendment bars a death sentence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 128, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 128, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 47-45 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 47-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 90, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 90, lines 11-47
How the case got here
A district court and a court of appeals reviewed Smith's intellectual disability claims. Justice Thomas asked what findings those lower courts reached. The case reached the Supreme Court after those rulings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 55-37 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 55-37
What each side wants
Alabama's side, argued by Mr. Overing, wants the Court to allow the death sentence. He says Smith is not intellectually disabled, so the Eighth Amendment exception does not apply.
Smith's side, argued by Mr. Graver and Mr. Waxman, wants the Court to uphold the lower rulings. They say states have discretion in defining intellectual disability, and Alabama's statutory standard uses substantially subaverage intellectual functioning, not a fixed IQ cutoff.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 128, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 128, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 47-45 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 47-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 90, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 90, lines 11-47
What each side says
Alabama's side says Atkins created an exception only for offenders known to be intellectually disabled. Mr. Overing argues Smith does not fit that exception.
Smith's side says Alabama's standard is substantially subaverage intellectual functioning. Mr. Waxman argues courts use the term true IQ of 70 or below improperly, according to his contention.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 128, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 128, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 47-45 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 47-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 90, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 90, lines 11-47
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor questioned Alabama's approach. She said states can define the standard as they want, and the problem is not what Alabama is doing.
Justice Thomas asked whether the test requires likelihood or certainty. He also asked what the lower courts found. His questions are not votes and no outcome was decided at argument.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 53-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 53-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-15 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 55-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 55-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 49-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 49-33
Why it matters
The ruling will shape how states define intellectual disability and what proof defendants need. Justice Jackson noted the case law does not mention an IQ score under 70 in the first prong. She also cited the expert association's brief on clinical judgment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 128, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 128, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 47-45 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 47-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 90, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 90, lines 11-47
What the Court decided
The Supreme Court decided its grant of review in this case was a mistake, so it is taking the case back off its docket. Because of that, the Court is not deciding anything about the merits of the dispute between the parties.
The Eleventh Circuit's judgment is left standing because the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, meaning review never happened.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 1, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 1, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 4, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 4, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 128, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 128, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 47-45 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 47-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 90, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 90, lines 11-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 128, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 128, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 47-45 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 47-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 90, lines 11-47 — Transcript, file page 90, lines 11-47
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 4 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.