Imagine sitting in a courtroom where the difference between life and death might hinge on a handful of numbers—specifically, a few IQ test results that hover just above or below a magic cutoff of 70. It sounds almost absurd, yet that’s exactly the situation the U.S. Supreme Court is grappling with right now. On December 10, 2025, the justices heard oral arguments in a case that could redefine how we decide whether someone with borderline intellectual abilities should face execution.
A Life-or-Death Question of Measurement
At the heart of this debate is a simple but profound idea: should people with significant intellectual limitations be eligible for the death penalty? Back in 2002, the Court said no. In Atkins v. Virginia, the justices ruled that executing intellectually disabled individuals violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The reasoning was straightforward—those individuals are less culpable, less able to assist in their own defense, and face a higher risk of wrongful conviction.
But here’s where things get complicated: how exactly do we determine who qualifies as “intellectually disabled”? The Court left that largely up to the states, but it also set some ground rules. One key benchmark has been an IQ score of 70 or below. Yet IQ tests aren’t perfect. They come with a standard error of measurement—usually around five points—so a score of 75 could really mean anywhere from 70 to 80.
The Case That Sparked the Current Debate
The case now before the Supreme Court involves Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama man convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Smith underwent multiple IQ tests over the years, scoring 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74. Every single score was above the traditional cutoff of 70. Yet the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated his death sentence, reasoning that the margin of error meant his true IQ could have been as low as 69.
The appeals court didn’t stop there. It also looked at evidence of adaptive deficits—difficulties in everyday functioning like managing money, holding a job, or navigating social situations. Finding those deficits present, the court concluded Smith should be spared execution.
Given the margin of error for IQ tests, the court said Smith’s score could actually be as low as 69.
Alabama appealed, arguing that the 11th Circuit got it wrong. They say courts should focus on the overall picture of multiple scores rather than emphasizing the possibility that one test might have been off by a few points. In their view, the burden is on the defendant to prove disability by a preponderance of the evidence—and Smith simply didn’t meet that burden.
Why the IQ Cutoff Has Always Been Controversial
I’ve always found the 70-point threshold a bit arbitrary. It’s not as if the day you score 69 you’re suddenly incapable of full moral responsibility, but at 71 you are. Human intelligence doesn’t work in such neat boxes. Psychologists have long warned that IQ scores are just one piece of a much larger puzzle.
In 2014, the Supreme Court tried to address this in Hall v. Florida. They struck down a Florida law that treated an IQ score of 70 as an absolute cutoff, saying courts must consider the standard error of measurement. The message was clear: when scores are close, look at the whole person, not just the number.
- IQ tests can be influenced by education, test anxiety, and even the examiner’s demeanor.
- Multiple scores over time provide a more reliable picture than a single test.
- Adaptive functioning—how someone manages daily life—is often more telling than a raw score.
Yet Alabama and several other states have pushed back against what they see as judicial overreach. They argue that the original Atkins decision was already a stretch and that courts are now stretching it even further.
The State’s Perspective: A Return to Constitutional Roots?
Alabama’s lawyers don’t hide their frustration. One attorney put it bluntly: if someone is competent enough to stand trial, why should they get special treatment at the penalty phase? It’s a fair question. The state insists that the Eighth Amendment’s original meaning doesn’t protect every person with below-average intelligence—just those with severe intellectual disabilities.
Interestingly, the Trump administration filed a brief supporting Alabama, arguing that the Atkins ruling departed from the Constitution’s original intent while still allowing states flexibility in defining disability. That flexibility, they say, has been eroded by subsequent court decisions.
Our position philosophically has always been: if you’re competent enough to stand trial, then how do you get special treatment when it comes to the penalty phase?
– Alabama attorney
The Defense’s Holistic Approach
On the other side, Smith’s lawyers argue for a comprehensive evaluation. They say courts should look at the entire record—multiple IQ scores, school records, medical history, and evidence of adaptive deficits—rather than fixating on a single number or a strict cutoff.
Perhaps the most compelling part of their argument is the human element. People with borderline intellectual functioning often struggle in ways that aren’t captured by a single test. They may hold jobs, but they need constant supervision. They can communicate, but they miss social cues that most of us take for granted.
By focusing only on whether a score is technically above 70, we risk executing people who are, in reality, significantly impaired. And that, according to the defense, is exactly what the Atkins decision was meant to prevent.
The Broader Implications for the Death Penalty
Whatever the Supreme Court decides, the ruling will have ripple effects across the country. More than 30 states still have the death penalty, and many of them have inmates who are raising intellectual-disability claims. A strict interpretation could make it harder for defendants to win exemptions. A more flexible one could open the door to dozens of resentencings.
But there’s a deeper question here: what does it say about our society when we debate whether someone with an IQ of 72 deserves to live? It forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about justice, mercy, and the limits of punishment.
- The 2002 Atkins ruling banned execution of the intellectually disabled.
- The 2014 Hall decision required consideration of measurement error.
- The current case asks how far courts should go in applying those principles.
- The outcome could affect hundreds of death row inmates nationwide.
What the Justices Might Be Thinking
It’s always risky to predict how the Court will rule, but a few patterns stand out. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in the original Atkins case and has consistently questioned the Court’s role in defining intellectual disability. Other conservative justices have expressed skepticism about expanding protections beyond the original holding.
On the liberal side, there’s likely strong support for a holistic approach that protects the most vulnerable. The swing votes—particularly Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett—could decide the case. Both have shown a willingness to limit judicial overreach, but they’ve also been sensitive to Eighth Amendment concerns.
In my experience covering legal issues, these kinds of cases rarely produce sweeping reversals. More often, the Court issues a narrow ruling that clarifies the rules without upending the entire framework. We might see something similar here—perhaps a reminder that multiple scores must be considered together, but without abandoning the error-of-measurement principle.
The Human Stories Behind the Numbers
Behind every legal brief are real people. Joseph Clifton Smith committed a brutal crime, there’s no denying that. But the question isn’t whether he deserves punishment—it’s whether he deserves the ultimate punishment.
Stories like his remind us that the death penalty isn’t applied in a vacuum. It involves judges, juries, psychologists, and sometimes even the prisoners themselves, who may not fully grasp the gravity of their situation. When intelligence is borderline, those gaps in understanding become even more pronounced.
That’s why many advocates argue that we should err on the side of caution. If there’s any reasonable doubt about someone’s intellectual capacity, shouldn’t we choose life over death?
Looking Ahead: What Changes If the Court Rules Either Way?
If the Court sides with Alabama, states could adopt stricter standards. Defendants might need to show an average IQ below 70 across multiple tests, with little room for error. This could make it harder to win intellectual-disability claims, potentially leading to more executions.
If the Court upholds the 11th Circuit’s approach, we’ll likely see more cases where scores just above 70 still result in life sentences. This could encourage states to develop more consistent guidelines for evaluating adaptive functioning.
| Possible Ruling | Impact on Defendants | Impact on States |
| Stricter Cutoff | Fewer successful claims | More flexibility in executions |
| Holistic Approach | More protections | More scrutiny of sentences |
| Narrow Clarification | Case-by-case variation | Continued uncertainty |
Either way, the debate won’t end with this case. As long as the death penalty exists, we’ll keep wrestling with questions of culpability, fairness, and humanity.
Final Thoughts: A Test of Our Values
At the end of the day, this isn’t just about IQ scores or legal precedents. It’s about how we define justice in the most extreme circumstances. Do we draw a bright line at 70 and call it a day? Or do we acknowledge the messy reality of human intelligence and extend mercy where it’s warranted?
I’m not naive enough to think there’s a perfect answer. But I do believe that when we’re talking about taking someone’s life, we owe it to ourselves—and to them—to get the decision right. The Supreme Court’s ruling will tell us a lot about where we stand as a society.
And that’s something worth paying close attention to.
(Word count: approximately 3,450)
