Supreme Court justices skipped a decision on how states must weigh intellectual‑disability evidence in death‑penalty cases. The ruling left the fate of Alabama inmate Joseph Clifton Smith in limbo, after his five IQ tests scored 72–78 and hovered near the 70‑point threshold that Alabama’s law uses to bar executions.

Alabama law requires defendants to show significant sub‑average intellectual functioning, deficits in adaptive behavior, and evidence before age 18. A district court ruled Smith qualified, citing margin‑of‑error adjustments that could lower a 72 to 69. The 11th Circuit upheld the holistic approach, but the Supreme Court declined to set a national standard.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted the record was incomplete, warning that expert disagreement could turn hearings into battles of credibility. Four dissents argued the Court ignored a pressing question that has “led to confusion” in lower courts. Their critique hints at a potential shift if the Court ever revisits the Atkins v. Virginia framework.

Smith will be spared the death penalty and resentenced, his lawyer said, while the state’s attorney general remains silent. The decision underscores a broader debate over whether IQ tests alone can determine eligibility for capital punishment. Without new guidance, future cases may hinge on how courts weigh varied scores and ancillary evidence.