U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments Hamm v. Smith
Dec 10, 2025
Guest
Respondent Counsel / Alabama Representative (Mr. Waxman)
Guest
Respondent Counsel (Mr. Graver)
Guest
Petitioner Counsel (Mr. Overing)
In this discussion, lead petitioner counsel Mr. Overing presents arguments on how multiple IQ scores should be evaluated in Atkins claims. Respondent counsel Mr. Graver defends Alabama's law, emphasizing state discretion in defining intellectual disability, while Mr. Waxman advocates for a holistic analysis of evidence beyond just IQ scores. The interplay of IQ results and adaptive functioning evidence takes center stage, as the justices probe the implications of federal standards versus state-defined criteria for the Eighth Amendment.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Atkins Allows State Discretion Within A Federal Floor
- Atkins permits states discretion, but the Eighth Amendment sets a federal floor that courts must enforce.
- Multiple IQ scores should be handled by reliable methods, not by treating a single low score as decisive.
Likelihood, Not Mere Possibility, Matters
- Courts should assess whether an offender's IQ is likely below 70, not merely possibly below 70.
- Petitioner argued the burden lies on the claimant to present a method showing a preponderance that true IQ ≤ 70.
IQ Is Primary But Not Exclusive
- The Court's precedent treats IQ as the primary indicator of intellectual functioning but permits other evidence.
- Justice Kagan emphasized prong one is not defined solely by an IQ cutoff in prior case law.