Filed: December 23, 2013

Court: United States Supreme Court

Overview: Amicus brief urging the court to reject an arbitrary cutoff for IQ scores in making the intellectual disability determination and emphasizing the importance of courts consulting clinical standards in their analysis.

Excerpt: “After decades of intensive study, mental disability professionals have a substantial understanding of what an individual’s score on an IQ test can tell us and what it cannot. There is a strong consensus among psychologists, psychiatrists, and other clinicians, as well as their professional associations, that imposing an arbitrary IQ cutoff score of 70 is wholly inconsistent with our scientific understanding of these instruments. Florida courts responsible for adjudicating Atkins cases are precluded from fairly evaluating all of the essential evidence that has probative value in making that determination. Evidence about a defendant’s impaired adaptive functioning—in this case, clearly impaired starting in childhood—cannot be ignored merely because of a judicially-imposed rule which is neither clinically nor scientifically justified. In Atkins, this Court invited States to devise ‘appropriate procedures to enforce the constitutional restriction’ against executing individuals with [intellectual disability]. The Florida Supreme Court’s arbitrary rule prevents consideration of relevant evidence and excludes from the Constitution’s protection a considerable portion of those persons who have mental retardation. It therefore cannot be deemed “appropriate.” Effectively reducing the group of individuals entitled to that protection by means of an arbitrary rule can hardly be deemed to be “enforcement” of the right that this Court announced.”

Case Documents:

• Hall Amicus Brief

Press Releases:

• Disability Case at the U.S. Supreme Court: What You Need to Know
• The Arc Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Protect Constitutional Rights of People With Intellectual Disability on Death Row
• The Arc Responds to U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Hall v. Florida
• The Arc Responds to Florida Supreme Court’s Decision to Vacate Death Sentence for Freddie Lee Hall in Florida

Related Media:

• New York Times: Court Extends Curbs on the Death Penalty in a Florida Ruling
• Slate: The Death Penalty Just Got a Tiny Bit Saner
• Washington Post: The death penalty is incompatible with human dignity
• NPR: Florida’s IQ Limit For Death Penalty Isn’t Constitutional, Supreme Court Says
• Disability Scoop: In Shift, Supreme Court Moves Away From ‘Mental Retardation’

Filed: July 18, 2024

Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief alongside other disability rights organizations arguing that Supreme Court precedent requires courts to refer to clinical standards when determining intellectual disability in death penalty cases.

Excerpt: “In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the United States Supreme Court held that executing defendants with intellectual disability violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Subsequently, in Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014), in accord with the clinical consensus, the United States Supreme Court rejected an arbitrary cutoff for intelligence quotient (“IQ”) scores in making the intellectual disability determination and emphasized the importance of courts’ adherence to the appropriate clinical standards in their analysis. In Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (hereinafter “Moore I”), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments requires that adjudications of intellectual disability in death penalty cases be “informed by the views of medical experts” and that the non-clinical factors adopted in Ex parte Briseño, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) may no longer be used because they create an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed. Following the Supreme Court’s lead, this Court has held that Texas courts ‘must be informed by the current medical diagnostic framework for assessing intellectual disability’ when determining whether a person has intellectual disability. Petetan v. State, 622 S.W.3d 321, 357 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021); Moore I, 137 S. Ct. at 1044. Courts must insist on the use of the clinical framework in evaluating Atkins claims. Otherwise, they risk violating the Eighth Amendment and unconstitutionally sentencing individuals to death.”

Case Documents:

• Milam Amicus Brief
• Milam Opinion
• Milam Concurrence

Press Releases & Explainers:

• Advocates Fight to Protect Texas Man With Intellectual Disability from Execution
• Explainer: Understanding the Fight to Protect People With Intellectual Disability From Execution

Related Media:

• NPR Texas Standard: Advocacy groups work to keep people with intellectual disabilities off of death row