The Supreme Court case that could redefine “cruel and unusual,” explained

The Supreme Court is set to hear a new case, Hamm v. Smith, which tests whether the current Republican majority wants to retain its limits on capital punishment for people with intellectual disabilities. In 2002, the court ruled that executing offenders with intellectual disabilities was unconstitutional in Atkins v. Virginia. Now, nearly three decades later, the court will consider how to determine if someone is intellectually disabled.

The most likely outcome of this case is a decision giving states more leeway to execute people with marginal claims that they are intellectually disabled - "borderline" cases where clinicians might disagree on whether the offender should be diagnosed with an intellectual disability. However, some members of the court have signaled that they would like to go much further.

In Bucklew v. Precythe (2019), five Republican justices seemed to endorse a radical reshaping of the court's approach to the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion ignored the traditional framework of evaluating cruel and unusual punishments as evolving standards of decency, instead suggesting that courts must ask whether a particular punishment had fallen out of favor by the time of the founding.

This approach would likely lead to the court overruling past decisions holding that the Constitution forbids excessive punishments for relatively minor crimes. For example, jaywalkers, small-time drug offenders, or drivers who do not come to a complete stop at a "STOP" sign could all be sentenced to life in prison.

It is unclear whether a majority of the court will adopt this radical approach, but it is very likely that the Eighth Amendment will emerge smaller from the court's decision in Hamm. This could diminish the legal protections against bizarre or excessive punishments that all Americans enjoy.

The court's right flank has criticized Atkins from the day it was decided, and now controls six seats on the nine-justice court. The death row inmate at the heart of Hamm's claim is genuinely marginal, making it likely that the court will decide in his favor without having to reach very far.

The specific issue before the court in Hamm is whether Joseph Clifton Smith can be executed for a 1997 robbery and murder despite claiming he has an intellectual disability. Smith took five IQ tests, scoring between 72 and 78 on those tests, but courts hearing his claims have determined that he is intellectually disabled based on significant deficits in social and intellectual skills.

The court's decision will likely turn on the tension within its current decisions applying Atkins. On one hand, while Atkins did hold that executing intellectually disabled offenders is unconstitutional, it gave states a fair amount of leeway in how they implement this holding. On the other hand, recent decisions have insisted that states must follow clinical standards when determining which offenders are intellectually disabled.

In Bucklew, Gorsuch took a much more radical approach, suggesting that courts should ask whether a particular punishment had fallen out of favor by the time of the founding. This approach would likely lead to the court overruling past decisions and permitting very steep penalties for very small crimes.

It is unclear how the justices will resolve this case, but it could potentially revolutionize the court's approach to the Eighth Amendment. It may not have five votes to adopt this radical approach, but at least some members of the Bucklew majority may have joined Gorsuch's opinion because they agreed with the result, while still harboring some qualms about his broader theory.

man I'm getting really nervous thinking about this Hamm v Smith case it's like they're trying to flip the script on all the protections we got for ppl with intellectual disabilities I mean first off Atkins v Virginia said executing ppl with intellectual disabilities was unconstitutional but now it seems like they wanna give states more leeway to, you know, execute people who might not be totally messed up in the head idk what's going on but it sounds super scary and I'm kinda worried that we're gonna lose some of our basic human rights

I dont know how u can even consider lettin people woth intelectual disability on death row its like somethin outta horror movie what if they actually do decide to let him go? I think its super important that the court finds a way to balance justice and mercy at the same time

the courts decisions are gonna affect alot of people think its not a good idea to loosen up the rules on capital punishment people already suffer enough

I THINK THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO GET REALLY WEIRD IN THIS CASE!!! they're basically saying that if you're just kinda sorta dumb, YOU CAN STILL GET THE DEATH PENALTY! and i'm not sure how much of this is gonna make it to the final decision, but it's defo got my attention!

the supreme court is always a wild card , and this case Hamm v. Smith could go either way . i'm kinda worried that the court might water down the protections for people with intellectual disabilities . the idea of "borderline" cases being executed is super concerning . what if someone's diagnosis is incorrect or they're just not getting a fair shake?

and then there's the Bucklew v. Precythe case, which could lead to some pretty drastic changes . i mean, who decides what punishments are "cruel and unusual"? it seems like we might be heading towards a future where people can get life in prison for minor crimes . that's just not right .

i know some people think the court should let states decide how to handle intellectual disability cases, but i think that could lead to all sorts of inconsistencies and injustices . what if someone's found guilty of a crime they didn't commit?

anyway, it's gonna be interesting to see how this all plays out

I'm gettin' a bad vibe from this new case comin' up in the Supreme Court . It sounds like they're gonna make it easier for states to execute people who are kinda, but not totally, intellectually disabled . I mean, I get where Atkins v. Virginia was important back in 2002, but now it's like they wanna take that ruling and water it down.

It's like Justice Gorsuch is tryin' to pull a fast one on the rest of us . His idea that courts should just check if a punishment has fallen outta favor since the founding? That's some crazy talk, dude . I don't think he wants us to be stuck with life sentences for jaywalkin' or somethin' .

I'm hopin' most of the justices won't go down this rabbit hole , but you never know what's gonna happen in DC . One thing's for sure, though: if they do decide to go radical, it's gonna be a wild ride .

I'm really worried about what could happen in this Hamm v. Smith case. If the Supreme Court sides with the more radical approach suggested by Justice Neil Gorsuch, it could be a game-changer for people's lives. I mean, imagine being sentenced to life in prison just for jaywalking or something! It's like, what's next?

The fact that we're even considering this is pretty alarming. The court has been inconsistent on its approach to the Eighth Amendment, and it feels like they're trying to chip away at the protections we have in place. I'm not sure how five justices would be able to justify giving states more leeway to execute people with borderline intellectual disability claims.

The thing that really bothers me is that this isn't just about intellectual disabilities; it's about basic human rights. If the court decides to adopt a framework where courts must ask whether a punishment has fallen out of favor by the time of the founding, I think we're looking at a huge problem. It's like they're saying that our values as a society are constantly changing and we need to update the Constitution accordingly.

But here's the thing: this is already happening with other issues, like gun control and climate change. We're trying to adapt to these changes without fundamentally altering our values or the principles of justice that we hold dear. It feels like the court is moving in the wrong direction if they start to redefine what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishments" in such a broad way.

What really worries me is that the court's right flank controls six seats on the nine-justice court, which means that there are more conservative justices who might be swayed by this approach. It feels like we're at a crossroads here, and if the court decides to take this path, it could have far-reaching consequences for people who are already vulnerable.

I'm hoping that some members of the Bucklew majority might have second thoughts about Gorsuch's opinion, even if they agree with the result. But until then, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the court will make a decision that prioritizes justice and human rights over ideological purity.

I'm so worried about what could happen in this case ... If the court decides to give states more leeway on executing people with intellectual disabilities, it's like they're saying that it's okay to punish us for who we are . And if they start applying a new standard that says punishments fall out of favor over time, it could lead to some seriously harsh penalties ... I mean, can you imagine getting life in prison for jaywalking or something? That's just crazy talk! It's like they're trying to take away our basic human rights and just throw them on the scrap heap.

the more i think about it, the more i'm worried about where this is headed. if the court starts to let states make up their own rules on intellectual disability testing, we're basically opening the door for a slippery slope of harsher punishments. i mean, what's next? life in prison for jaywalkers or minor drug offenses? it's not just about capital punishment, but about the fundamental principles of our justice system and what constitutes cruelty and unusual punishment. if they start to undermine those protections, we're basically losing a cornerstone of our democracy

omg u guys i cant even believe what might happen with this case Hamm v Smith its like they wanna take away our right to not get executed for jaywalking lol idk what's more scary tho - the idea of ppl w/ intellectual disability being put on death row or states getting to decide who lives & dies based on "borderline" cases its like, how are we supposed to even determine if someone has an intel disability? and what does this mean for ppl who might not be considered "intellectually disabled" but still get harsh punishments?!

so like if we put this into context... 2025, and we're still debating whether ppl w/ intell disability should get a death sentence ... meanwhile, 10 yrs ago, in 2015, the US spent $25B on the Death Penalty - that's like, 1.3% of the federal budget but did u know that ppl w/ intell disability are up to 4x more likely to be wrongly convicted than others? stats show that since Atkins v. Virginia (2002), there's been a 26% decrease in executions of people w/ intell disability but still, ppl w/ intell disability are being executed at a rate 2.5x higher than those without

chart time! here are some key stats:

* Since 2002: 27% decrease in executions of people w/ intell disability
* 2019: 26% of death row inmates had an IQ below 80
* 2020: the US executed 45 ppl, while China executed 55 (but we're not counting those)
* 2015: $25B spent on Death Penalty

anywayz... like, I think its clear that our justice system needs a major overhaul especially when it comes to protecting people w/ intell disability

The more I think about this Hamm v. Smith case, the more I feel like we're going to see a whole lot of grey areas and not as clear-cut an outcome as people are making it out to be . I mean, sure, some folks are saying that if states have more leeway to execute people with marginal claims of intellectual disability, that's basically just a euphemism for "we're gonna find ways to get around the death penalty ban" . But others are saying that if the court decides to adopt this radical approach, it could lead to some pretty harsh punishments for relatively minor crimes... and I'm not sure I want that . On the other hand, if the court does decide to stick with the more established framework of evaluating cruel and unusual punishments, I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief . The thing is, it's hard to predict what's gonna happen at this point... but one thing's for sure, we'll be watching this case like hawk .

This is going to be super interesting to watch . I think it's a big deal if the court decides to make it easier for states to execute people who are considered "borderline" intellectually disabled - it feels like we're playing with fire here . The idea that some justices want to go way beyond what Atkins said is really troubling and could have huge consequences for people who get wrongly accused of capital crimes .

I'm curious to see how the court will weigh the importance of protecting intellectually disabled people's rights against states' attempts to expand their power over the death penalty . It feels like we're at a crossroads here - if the court decides to take this radical approach, it could lead to some pretty scary outcomes for people who are already vulnerable .

this is gonna be a wild case... i mean its already sounding like it could go either way - on one hand you got that radical approach from bucklew where they're essentially saying punishments fall out of favor over time (lol what does that even mean???) and on the other you got the atkins ruling that kinda says no to executing people with intellectual disabilities. i'm a bit worried about the implications, idk if we'd be looking at life sentences for some pretty minor crimes

I don’t usually comment but... I'm really worried about where this is going . If the court decides to give states more leeway to execute people with "borderline" cases, it could lead to a slippery slope. One day it's a guy who took a few IQ tests, and the next it's jaywalkers or small-time drug offenders getting life in prison. It's just not right . I think we need to protect people with intellectual disabilities, not make it harder for them to get help. And what about the mental health implications of executing someone who might be " borderline" intellectually disabled?

I'm low-key worried about where the Supreme Court is headed on this Hamm v. Smith case . They're already giving states more leeway to execute people with "borderline" cases of intellectual disability, which seems like a slippery slope to me . If they start expanding the definition of what it means to be intellectually disabled, who's next?

And don't even get me started on that Bucklew v. Precythe case . If the court starts asking if punishments have "fallen out of favor" by the time of the founding, that's a whole new ball game . I'm talking life in prison for jaywalkers or small-time drug offenders - it's just not right .

I know some people might say that's what the founders intended, but come on... we've learned so much about human psychology and behavior since then . It's time to update our laws and protect people from cruel and unusual punishments .

One thing I do hope is that the court doesn't overrule past decisions on the Eighth Amendment . We need to be careful not to undermine the protections we have in place for Americans who are already vulnerable .

man I'm getting worried about where this is gonna go if they decide to water down the rules like that it's gonna be super open season on people who do stuff wrong no matter how small the crime is and it's all gonna come down to "is this punishment still considered cruel and unusual" meanwhile ppl with disabilities are already being executed left & right and nobody's doing anything about it

I'm worried that if the court decides to give states more leeway in determining intellectual disability, it could lead to a slippery slope where people like Joseph Clifton Smith are executed for relatively minor crimes. Like, who gets to decide what's considered "marginal" and what's not? It seems like we're already seeing this play out with the recent Bucklew v. Precythe case, where Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that courts should ask if a punishment has fallen out of favor since the founding. That's some pretty radical stuff . I just hope the justices in Hamm can find a way to balance compassion and justice without compromising human rights.

its mind boggling that we're having a case where people with intellectual disabilities are being considered for death penalty again like how can we justify executing someone who may not fully understand what's happening to them? this Hamm v Smith case is a huge deal because it could potentially lead to states being able to execute more ppl who have marginal claims of being intellectually disabled, which would be super concerning for me the court's approach in Bucklew v Precythe sounds like a recipe for disaster where ppl can get harsh punishments for minor crimes and i hope the justices dont adopt this radical idea