SCOTUS to Revisit Death Penalty Limits in *Hamm v. Smith
*
The Supreme Court is poised to revisit the constitutional limits on capital punishment, specifically concerning the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Next Wednesday, the court will hear arguments in
Hamm v. Smith
, a case that will test the current court’s appetite for upholding, or even expanding, states’ power to carry out the death penalty. The case arrives nearly a quarter-century after
Atkins v. Virginia
(2002), which established that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The Core Issue: Defining Intellectual Disability
At the heart of
Hamm v. Smith
lies the question of how strictly the court will interpret the definition of “intellectual disability.” While
Atkins
established a clear prohibition, the nuances of diagnosis and the potential for varying clinical opinions in “borderline” cases leave room for interpretation. Legal experts suggest that the most probable outcome of
Hamm
will be a decision granting states greater latitude in executing individuals whose intellectual disability claims are not definitive. This potential shift could significantly impact individuals with marginal claims of intellectual disability, placing them at increased risk of execution.
A Glimpse into the Court’s Mindset: *Bucklew v. Precythe
*
The 2019 case of
Bucklew v. Precythe
offers insight into the potential direction the court might take. In
Bucklew
, five Republican-appointed justices appeared to express a desire to re-evaluate the Supreme Court’s overall approach to excessive punishments. This suggests that some justices may be open to significantly curtailing existing protections against capital punishment. The implications of such a shift could extend beyond intellectual disability, potentially affecting other areas where the court has previously limited the application of the death penalty.
Looking Ahead: Implications of the Decision
The
Hamm v. Smith
decision has the potential to reshape the landscape of capital punishment in the United States. A ruling that favors greater state autonomy could lead to more executions of individuals with cognitive impairments, raising serious ethical and moral concerns. Moreover, the case could signal a broader shift in the court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, potentially impacting future challenges to capital punishment and other forms of punishment deemed “cruel and unusual.” The legal community, advocacy groups, and the public alike will be watching closely as the Supreme Court grapples with these complex and consequential issues.
Based on materials: Vox
