The Supreme Court is poised to hear Hamm v. Smith, an Alabama death penalty case that could severely weaken existing protections for individuals with intellectual disabilities facing execution. This case highlights the ongoing struggle to ensure humane and just treatment for vulnerable populations within the criminal justice system. At the heart of the matter is Joseph Smith, whose multiple IQ scores hover around the lower fifth percentile. A federal court recognized Smith's intellectual disability based on these scores and his adaptive behaviors, which are crucial for navigating daily life. The Supreme Court's landmark 2002 Atkins ruling affirmed that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Constitution, recognizing their diminished capacity and increased vulnerability to injustice.

Alabama's attempt to execute Smith represents a troubling trend of states seeking to circumvent the spirit and letter of the Atkins decision. The state proposes a new protocol where any IQ score above 70 could negate an intellectual disability claim, regardless of other clinical evidence. This approach directly contradicts the established clinical consensus that intellectual disability is a multifaceted diagnosis, not solely determined by a single IQ score. Such a narrow interpretation would disproportionately impact individuals from marginalized communities who already face systemic disadvantages within the criminal justice system.

Historically, states have employed various tactics to bypass the Atkins ruling, often targeting individuals with borderline intellectual functioning. The Supreme Court has previously intervened to prevent such injustices, as seen in cases involving Florida's strict IQ cutoff and Texas's reliance on subjective criteria. These interventions underscore the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of vulnerable populations and ensuring that capital punishment is applied fairly and equitably. However, the current composition of the Supreme Court raises concerns about the future of these protections.

The potential consequences of Hamm v. Smith are far-reaching. If the Supreme Court sides with Alabama, it could open the door for other states to adopt similar restrictive protocols, leading to a surge in the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities. This outcome would exacerbate existing inequalities within the criminal justice system, where racial and socioeconomic biases already contribute to disproportionate outcomes. Furthermore, it would undermine the principles of human dignity and justice that underpin the Constitution.