Supreme Court Blocks Alabama Execution In Borderline Intellectual Disability Case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked Alabama's attempt to execute an inmate with a borderline intellectual disability by dismissing Hamm v. Smith as improvidently granted.[1]
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court's three Democratic appointees to form the 5-4 majority that dismissed the case.[2] Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, filed a concurrence saying the evidentiary record and lower-court rulings were too underdeveloped to offer meaningful guidance on handling multiple IQ scores.[2] Sotomayor warned the dissenters' proposed approach to evaluating multiple IQ scores was "incomplete and potentially misleading," and she noted that all parties agreed the Eighth Amendment does not prescribe a single formula for weighing such scores.[2]
The Court had initially granted certiorari to decide when and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in determining intellectual disability under the Eighth Amendment.[2] By dismissing the case as improvidently granted, the justices left that legal question unresolved and effectively prevented Alabama from carrying out the execution.[1]
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the principal dissent, joined fully by Justice Clarence Thomas and largely by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch.[2] He said the dismissal was a missed chance to give lower courts guidance on evaluating multiple IQ scores.[2] Thomas also filed a separate solo dissent underscoring conservative disagreement with the Court's choice to decline the case.[2]
Show source details & analysis (2 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- On Thursday, May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 lineup with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joining three Democratic appointees, dismissed Hamm v. Smith as improvidently granted.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, filed a concurrence saying the evidentiary record and lower-court rulings were too underdeveloped for the Court to provide meaningful guidance on handling multiple IQ scores and warning the dissenters' view was “incomplete and potentially misleading,” noting that all parties agreed the Eighth Amendment does not prescribe a single formula for weighing such scores.
- Justice Samuel Alito wrote the principal dissent, joined fully by Justice Clarence Thomas and largely by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, criticizing the dismissal as a missed opportunity to give lower courts guidance on evaluating multiple IQ scores.
- Justice Clarence Thomas also authored a separate solo dissent, underscoring conservative disagreement with the decision to dismiss Alabama's appeal.
- The Court had initially granted certiorari to decide how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores when determining whether a defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment.
📰 Source Timeline (2)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- The Supreme Court's 5-4 lineup is detailed: Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the three Democratic appointees to form the majority dismissing Hamm v. Smith as improvidently granted on May 21, 2026.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, filed a concurrence arguing the evidentiary record and lower-court rulings were too underdeveloped for the Court to provide meaningful guidance on handling multiple IQ scores in intellectual-disability claims.
- Sotomayor's concurrence warns that the dissenters' view of precedent on evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'incomplete and potentially misleading' and notes that all parties agreed the Eighth Amendment does not prescribe a single formula for weighing such scores.
- Justice Samuel Alito wrote the principal dissent, joined fully by Justice Clarence Thomas and largely by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, criticizing the dismissal as a missed opportunity to give lower courts guidance on IQ-score evaluation.
- Justice Clarence Thomas also authored a separate solo dissent in the case, underscoring conservative disagreement with the decision to dismiss Alabama's appeal.
- The article underscores that the Court initially granted certiorari to decide how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores when determining whether a defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment.