The U.S. Supreme Court is gearing up to hear arguments in a significant case that could reshape the standards used to evaluate the intellectual disabilities of death row inmates, especially in Alabama. The appeal centers on Joseph Clifton Smith, who has spent nearly half his life on death row for the 1997 murder of Durk Van Dam. Lower courts deemed Smith intellectually disabled, referencing a comprehensive evaluation of his mental capabilities that includes multiple IQ tests, all yielding results just above the widely accepted threshold of 70. The Supreme Court previously ruled against the execution of intellectually disabled individuals, a precedent supported by a 2002 decision.

Smith’s attorneys assert that the courts properly considered a range of evidence to arrive at their conclusion. In contrast, Alabama's Attorney General argues that the multiple IQ scores in the seventies undermine the claim of disability, suggesting that these figures warrant a scrutiny not consistent with Smith’s claims. The administrative backing of Alabama from the Trump administration adds political weight to the case, reflecting broader debates on how the criminal justice system intersects with both medical and ethical evaluations of disability.

This case not only impacts Smith and his appeals but may set new standards for future cases involving the intersection of intellectual disability and capital punishment, a contentious issue that raises questions about fairness, justice, and the values of society in assessing life and death sentences.