Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

March 6, 2023 | U.S. Supreme Court Takes on Big Tech

Fixed IQ Score Cannot be Sole Measure of Incapacity to be Executed

A divided Supreme Court has withdrawn some of the discretion it gave to the states to determine when an individual convicted of murder is too intellectually incapacitated to be executed. The five to four majority held that states cannot use a fixed IQ score as the measure for incapacity to be executed.

Facts

Freddie Lee Hall was sentenced to die in Florida for abducting a pregnant housewife from a store parking lot, sexually assaulting her, and finally killing her. Afterward, Hall and his accomplice robbed a convenience store, and shot and killed a deputy sheriff who responded.

History

Hall asked a Florida state court to vacate his death sentence. He presented evidence that included an IQ test score of 71, which under Florida law made him eligible to be executed. The court denied his motion, determining that a Florida statute mandated that he show an IQ score of 70 or below before being permitted to present any additional intellectual disability evidence. The State Supreme Court rejected Hall’s appeal, finding the State’s 70-point threshold constitutional.

Decision

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority and was joined in the opinion by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. The Court reasoned that Florida’s strict rule of preventing further investigation of an individual’s intellectual disability if they have an IQ above 70 creates an “unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed, and thus is unconstitutional.”

The main opinion relied heavily upon medical learning about the nature of intellectual disability and its skepticism about the reliability of test scoring to determine the eligibility of an individual to be executed. The Court’s holding did not prohibit the use of IQ test scores as part of the analysis in determining an individual’s intellectual abilities to qualify for the death sentence, but it urged states to go beyond test scores to determine capacity. “Intellectual incapacity,” the high Court said, “is a condition, not a number.”

Dissent

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., wrote the dissent, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The dissent said the majority had given the issue of determining eligibility to be executed to the practice of psychiatric medicine.

Previous Articles

U.S. Supreme Court Takes on Big Tech
by DONALD SCARINCI on March 6, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two big cases involving Big Tech this week. The case...

Read More
SCOTUS to Clarify Standard for Determining Whether True Threat Exception Applies
by DONALD SCARINCI on February 27, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Counterman v. Colorado, which involves the st...

Read More
SCOTUS to Take on Religious Rights in the Workplace
by DONALD SCARINCI on February 21, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court has added another high-profile case to its docket, agreeing to address the r...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court Holds Debts Incurred by Fraud Are Ineligible for Bankruptcy Relief
  • NJ Supreme Court Rules Campus Police Officer Eligible for Arbitration
  • Lorem ipsum
  • Ketanji Brown Jackson to Join SCOTUS as First Black Female Justice

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards

con law awards

Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising