Supreme Court Considers Whether Man Is Too Stupid To Die

Death row inmates may have a final defense against execution: Stupidity.

That depends on the decision of the Supreme Court, which heard oral argument in the case of Hamm v. Smith on Wednesday. The case concerns how states should evaluate the mental capacity of inmates sentenced to capital punishment. 

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument: Hamm v. Smith, a case about a defendant’s attempt to overturn his death sentence on the grounds that he is intellectually disabled, especially in light of multiple IQ tests with varying results – LIVE online here: https://t.co/7EaNAhTQBZ

— CSPAN (@cspan) November 4, 2025

Joseph Clifton Smith was convicted of the 1997 murder of Durk Van Dam during the course of a robbery. 

Van Dam “died as a result of 35 different blunt-force injuries to his body,” according to court documents. He had “marks consistent with marks made by a saw on his neck, shoulder, and back … a large hemorrhage beneath his scalp, brain swelling, multiple rib fractures, a collapsed lung, multiple abrasions to his head and knees, and defensive wounds on his hands.” 

All members of the jury but one recommended Smith be sentenced to death, a recommendation which the trial court accepted. 

But Smith is still breathing. In a 2002 Supreme Court case, Atkins v. Virginia, the Court ruled that executing a person with an intellectual disability constituted cruel and unusual punishment. In 2014’s Hall v. Florida, the Court held that a strict IQ threshold for determining intellectual disability was unconstitutional when deciding who is fit for capital punishment. 

An IQ test score of 70 or below is generally accepted as evidence of mental retardation. Smith has taken five IQ tests, according to court documents, earning scores of 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74. (RELATED: Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Makes Insane Comparison In Court, Belittles Her People In One Fell Swoop)

“It’s Smith’s burden to come with a method that proves that his IQ … is likely below 70,” argued Robert M. Overing, principal deputy solicitor general of Montgomery, Alabama. 

So only killers dumb enough to try on their IQ tests will be sent to the electric chair. 

You can’t have it both ways.

The American Psychological Association will have to come to terms with its conflicting claims involving cognitive maturity as the Court hears Hamm v. Smith in the coming weeks. 👇🏻

“In United States v. Skrmetti, the American Psychological… pic.twitter.com/Sd6BdvCozB

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) November 28, 2025

Smith is stupid. No doubt about it. Most violent criminals are. But even morons can demonstrate malice and forethought, as evidenced by planning to rob and bludgeon an innocent man. Do they deserve a “Get Out of Death Row Free” card because they can’t add three digit numbers? 

Note, too, the Court’s acceptance of IQ as a measurement of intellectual ability. Some justices wondered, in oral argument, whether other factors should be taken into consideration, but none seemed offended at the invocation of IQ itself. (RELATED: Worst Supreme Court Justice Inadvertently Calls To Change Constitution)

I was reliably assured by The Experts that IQ was junk science, and that those who see its merits are indefensible racists.

Oh, wait. That argument only applies when IQ is being considered in the context of university admissions or job qualifications. IQ becomes a well-reputed metric when you can use it to argue against executing violent criminals.

Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatSandovalDC