Alito Warns Supreme Court ‘Exacerbates' Confusion Over IQ and Death Penalty

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito warned that the court exacerbated confusion about the use of how courts should determine IQ in death penalty cases in a new ruling on Thursday.

Alito dissented from the Supreme Court majority that ruled to dismiss the case Hamm v. Smith on Thursday. A majority of justices decided the case should not be used to set rules to evaluate multiple IQ scores in death penalty cases. The case has implications for those cases involving individuals who may have intellectual disabilities. By dismissing the case without resolving the dispute over multiple IQ scores, the majority leaves lower courts without new guidance on the issue.

Supreme Court’s Ruling in Hamm v. Smith: What to Know

The case centers around Joseph Smith, who was sentenced to death in Alabama, who argued he is intellectually disabled and cannot be executed under Atkins v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing a person with mental disabilities is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

He cited IQ scores over the years ranging from 72 to 78, with standard error ranges that could place him below 70. Lower courts ultimately determined that Smith is intellectually disabled. Alabama asked the Supreme Court to intervene and determine how courts should approach cases involving multiple IQ scores.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the court's dismissal that it is "not equipped in this case to provide any meaningful guidance on how courts should assess multiple IQ scores."

"Although the parties offer to this Court a variety of approaches to assessing multiple IQ scores that States could adopt, the litigation below did not focus on whether a precise methodology exists that courts must use. Without the benefit of an evidentiary record or decisions below trained on the specific theories now advanced by the parties, this Court rightly concludes that it should not provide more detailed guidance beyond what this Court's cases have previously said," she wrote.

Alito, Thomas Write Dissenting Opinions

Alito and his fellow conservative justice, Clarence Thomas, wrote dissenting opinions in the case, arguing that the court should have used it to offer such guidance. The court "should have used this case to bring clarity to our Atkins doctrine," Alito wrote.

"By instead remaining silent, the Court exacerbates the confusion that plagues our jurisprudence in this area," he wrote. "If this Court continues to shy away from opportunities to provide workable doctrine, we should not be surprised if petitions asking us to overrule Atkins, Hall, and Moore arrive at our doorsteps soon."

Thomas was more critical of the ruling in Atkins, writing that the court at the time "set aside the Constitution and imposed a new rule anyway."

"As this case shows, though, Atkins has bred only confusion and absurdity. Nothing in the text or history of the Constitution supports Atkins. It should be overruled," he wrote.

2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

This story was originally published May 21, 2026 at 8:14 AM.