One quiet decision by the Supreme Court just made it easier for states to keep gambling with the lives of people the law already says we are not allowed to execute.

Story Snapshot

• The Supreme Court has already ruled that a rigid IQ cutoff for death sentences is unconstitutional.
• Yet the Court recently sidestepped a chance to clarify how IQ scores should actually be used on death row.
• That dodge leaves states wide latitude to lean on numbers that medicine treats as rough estimates.
• The result is a system where a few IQ points can still separate life from death, despite clear warnings from doctors and prior cases.

How We Got From “No Cutoffs” To A New Gray Area

Hall v. Florida in 2014 looked, on paper, like a turning point. The Supreme Court held that Florida could not use a rigid rule that barred any claim of intellectual disability if a defendant’s IQ was above 70, because IQ tests are “imprecise” and must be read as a range, not a single number. The Court tied the law to medical standards that define intellectual disability using three factors: low intellectual functioning, deficits in adaptive behavior, and onset before age eighteen.

That ruling did more than scold one state. Florida’s scheme required a defendant to show an IQ score of 70 or below before he could even introduce evidence of adaptive deficits. The Court said that kind of bright line “creates an unacceptable risk” that people with intellectual disability will be executed, violating the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In plain English: when a life is on the line, you do not slam the courthouse door because a test score wobbles above an arbitrary cut.

What Doctors Say IQ Scores Really Mean

Psychologists and psychiatrists have hammered home a simple point: an IQ score is an estimate, not a divine decree.^[3] Standard tests carry a margin of error of about plus or minus five points, meaning a recorded score of 71 likely reflects a true score somewhere between 66 and 76.^[3] Major diagnostic standards, like the current manual used in psychiatry, allow a diagnosis of intellectual disability above 70 when adaptive functioning is severely impaired.^[2][3]

Professional groups told the Court that diagnosis requires a comprehensive clinical evaluation that goes beyond a number on a page.^[5] That includes how a person actually functions in daily life—managing money, understanding directions, caring for themselves, handling social situations. Researchers agree that IQ tests alone cannot diagnose intellectual disability.^[2][3] For anyone who values common sense, this lines up: real-world ability matters more than a testing-day snapshot, especially when the government is deciding whether you live or die.

Hamm v. Smith And The Question The Court Would Not Answer

Fast forward to Hamm v. Smith, where an Alabama death row inmate had IQ scores ranging roughly from the low seventies to the upper seventies over multiple tests.^[3] His lawyers asked the Court to enforce what Hall already suggested: courts should not cherry-pick scores or demand proof of “70 or less” before they consider intellectual disability. They urged a holistic assessment that weighed all scores together with adaptive functioning and evidence from the developmental years.^[3]

Breaking: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a stay of execution for Texas death row inmate Edward Busby on Thursday, clearing the way for his execution tonight amid concerns of his ineligibility due to intellectual disability. https://t.co/tB6dqZrut3

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) May 14, 2026

The question teed up was narrow but crucial: when someone has several IQ tests, how should courts handle the mix, given the built-in error and the ban on rigid cutoffs?^[3][4] States and the federal government argued they could still put the burden on the prisoner and were not required to treat the lowest end of the range as decisive.^[4] That view keeps more control in government hands and favors administrable rules over case-by-case mercy. From a conservative perspective that values both limited government and the sanctity of life, that tension should raise eyebrows.

Why Dodging The IQ Question Matters For Death Row

When the Supreme Court sidesteps a case like this—whether by a narrow procedural order or by declining to settle the standard—the law does not freeze; it drifts. States retain broad discretion to shape evidentiary rules, including how they weigh multiple IQ scores and adaptive evidence, so long as they avoid an overt “70 and done” statute like Florida’s old law.^[4] On paper, Hall still bars a rigid cutoff. In practice, courts can treat scores in the seventies as strong evidence against disability and discount messy real-life deficits.

That drift is not hypothetical. Commentators tracking post-Hall cases describe continued executions of people with serious intellectual limitations, especially where courts focus on numbers instead of everyday functioning.^[3] The risk the Hall Court highlighted—executing people the Constitution says we must not kill—does not vanish because the state calls its rule “guidance” instead of a bright line. When the Supreme Court declines to clarify how to handle multiple scores or borderline ranges, it effectively tells lower courts, “You figure it out,” while lives depend on their guesses.

What A Common-Sense Standard Should Look Like

A sane approach would follow the path Hall started and medicine already walks: treat IQ scores as ranges, never as gates; look hard at adaptive functioning; and insist on onset before adulthood.^[2] That framework respects both science and the Constitution. It does not guarantee leniency; it simply ensures that the death penalty does not fall on those whom the law itself recognizes as less capable of understanding and controlling their conduct.

Some argue that flexible standards invite delay and inconsistency, and there is a grain of truth there. But the answer to bureaucratic frustration is not to let the state hide behind a number while it extinguishes a human life. Conservative values emphasize personal responsibility, yes—but also a government restrained by moral limits. One of those limits, already written into our constitutional fabric, is that the state may not execute people with intellectual disability. That promise means little if the Court will not say, clearly and consistently, how to keep it.

Sources:

[2] Web – Intellectual Disability, IQ Scores, and the Death Penalty

[3] Web – The Supreme Court To Decide on How IQ Tests Can Affect the …

[4] Web – Explainer: US Supreme Court to Review How IQ Scores May …

[5] Web – Supreme Court to rule on how IQ scores are weighed in death …