The Arc of the United States, along with our partners, recently filed an amicus brief in a critical case before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Ex Parte Blaine Milam. This case highlights an ongoing issue in our criminal justice system: the unconstitutional execution of people with intellectual disability (ID).

Here’s what you need to know about this important fight for justice.

The Background

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with ID violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Arc played a crucial role in this landmark decision, with our amicus brief cited by the Justices in support of their ruling. In Hall v. Florida (2014), the Court rejected an arbitrary cutoff for IQ scores in making the intellectual disability determination and emphasized the importance of courts using clinical standards in their analysis. In Moore v. Texas (2017 and 2019), the Court strengthened this precedent by emphasizing the need to rely on well-established scientific standards in making ID determinations in death penalty cases. The Arc filed amicus briefs in Atkins, Hall, and Moore to educate the Court on the clinical diagnosis of ID and ensure that people with ID are protected from the death penalty.

Despite these decisions, courts around the country too often continue to rely on stereotypes rather than scientific standards when determining ID in death penalty cases. This results in wrongful death sentences and executions. At the same time, people with ID are overrepresented at all stages of the criminal justice system, including being arrested, charged with a crime, and serving longer prison sentences once convicted than people without disabilities.

The Current Case

The case in Texas involves Blaine Milam, a death row inmate with intellectual disability. Mr. Milam was only 20 years old when he received his sentence and was scheduled to be executed in early 2019.  Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals suspended his execution to determine if he met the definition of ID. The state’s initial expert concluded that Mr. Milam met the standard for an ID diagnosis, but the state later retained a new expert who disagreed. Despite Mr. Milam’s lawyers presenting reports from four medical experts on clinical errors in the evaluation done by the state’s new expert, that opinion was adopted, and the trial court decided to move forward with Mr. Milam’s execution. He is currently on death row.

Our amicus brief urges the court to rely on well-established clinical standards and Supreme Court precedent when determining ID, rather than outdated stereotypes.

Why This Matters

1. Fair Treatment: People with ID are at a higher risk of wrongful convictions and death sentences. They may be more likely to falsely confess to a crime, struggle to understand their rights, and have difficulty working with their lawyers to prepare their own defense.
2. Life or Death Stakes: In capital cases, an accurate determination of ID can literally mean life or death.
3. Use of Clinical Standards: Under Atkins, states are constitutionally required to ensure that people with ID are not sentenced to death nor executed. Despite Supreme Court precedent, some states continue to rely on unscientific standards for determining and defining intellectual disability, leading to wrongful executions. While this case pertains to the death penalty, it’s critical that court decisions that impact the lives of people with disabilities are properly informed and considered and not relying on stereotypes and misinformation.

The Arc has deep sympathy for the family and friends of victims in this case and supports appropriate punishment of all responsible parties. However, it is critical that courts utilize clinical standards and abide by the Constitution. In Mr. Milam’s case, the State’s latter expert did not rely on clinical standards for diagnosing ID.

The Arc’s Position

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) must receive justice in our criminal justice system. We advocate so that:

• All criminal justice personnel are knowledgeable and trained about IDD.
• People with IDD have access to necessary supports, accommodations, treatment, and education throughout legal proceedings.
• People with ID continue to be exempt from the death penalty.
• States use accurate, scientific procedures to determine ID in capital cases.

Learn more in The Arc’s position statement on criminal justice.

Our Impact

The Arc has been at the forefront of this fight for decades. Since the Atkins decision in 2002, we’ve been actively involved in fighting for the rights of death row inmates with intellectual disability in federal and state courts across the country. We’ve filed numerous amicus briefs, appealed to lawmakers with clemency petitions, and continue to advocate more broadly for the rights of people with IDD in the criminal justice system.

The bottom line is that people’s lives will continue to be on the line if well-established clinical standards are not widely used to diagnose intellectual disability in our criminal justice system. We will continue our advocacy for justice for all people with IDD.