Hamm v. Smith
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Hamm v. Smith and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Hamm v. Smith.
In Hamm v. Smith, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. The case involved the evaluation of multiple IQ scores in determining intellectual disability under Atkins v. Virginia. The Court did not provide guidance on how courts should assess multiple IQ scores in Atkins claims.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Hamm v. Smith.
The Court held that the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Hamm v. Smith. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Cruel and Unusual Punishment is relevant to Hamm v. Smith
The case revolves around the application of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, specifically in the context of executing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court largely left it to the States to 'develo[p] appropriate ways to enforce' this limitation. Id., at 317. The Alabama Supreme Court responded by adopting a definition of intellectual disability that requires the defendant to prove three prongs, all by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) 'significantly subaverage intellectual functioning (an IQ of 70 or below)'...
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Hamm v. Smith that support the summary and concepts above.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
The Court is not equipped in this case to provide any meaningful guidance on how courts should assess multiple IQ scores.