This fall 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will be hearing a case related to intelligence testing in the context of Atkins intellectual disability (ID) death penalty cases. The case is Hamm v Smith.
The question before SCOTUS is : Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing Atkins claims (in the context of diagnosis ID in death penalty cases)?
Note. In order to save space and time, instead of writing “general intelligence” or “general intellectual functioning” every time, I use the abbreviation “IQ”.
The respondent (Joseph Smith) has five IQ test scores from comprehensive IQ tests. He obtained two scores of 75 and 74 during the developmental period (before age 22), and three scores of 72, 78, and 74 between the ages of 28 and 46.
This case is important for assessment professionals who conduct intelligence testing in general, and potential ID diagnostic cases (Atkins cases in particular). I find this SCOTUS case particularly interesting given that in 2021, after the 2021 release of the latest official AAIDD manual (Intellectual disability: Definition, diagnosis, classification, and systems of supports), I published a critique where I specifically stated, as one weakness of the new AAIDD manual that “…many high-stakes ID cases often include case files that include multiple IQ scores across time or from different IQ tests. Some form of guidance, at minimum in a passing reference, to the issues of the convergence of indicators and IQ score exchangeability would have been useful. Users will need to go beyond the AAIDD manual for guidance (see Floyd et al., 2021; McGrew, 2015; and Watson, 2015)” (click here to download and read this critique).
All official petitioner and respondent legal briefs (and amicus briefs) have now been published at the SCOTUS blog as of yesterday. The number of documents posted on the SCOTUS docket are many. To help the reader better determine which documents are most critical (the final briefs), instead of clicking away on the various links at the SCOUTUS blog, I’ve organized the petitioner and respondent brief links below.
If you prefer to not wade through all the briefs (it is not for everyone), I would encourage practicing assessment professionals read the three respondent-related briefs. The points made are relevant to all who conduct intellectual assessments. As a potential conflict of interest notice, I (Dr. Kevin McGrew), together with Dr. Joel Schneider and Dr. Cecil Reynolds (as noted on page three for the APA amicus brief), were consultants to APA in the drafting of that brief. This work was performed pro bono. I, at a minimum, suggest reading all the respondent briefs. If time permits, I would also suggest reading the petitioner’s Alabama brief and the US Justice Department Solicitor General’s brief to better understand the petitioner and respondent positions re Hamm v Smith.
Petitioner briefs
- The state of Alabama brief. Alabama is the petitioner. That is, if you want to read why the State of Alabama asked SCOTUS to hear this case, click on the link provided.
- The Alabama brief also includes a very long appendix for those who want to read the prior courts related testimony from the state and various experts. This is a very long read and is not necessary for readers who only want to understand the legal and professional issues.
- Supporting amicus brief from the US Justice Department Solicitor General.
- Two supporting briefs from legal groups—the American Legal Foundation and the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
- Supporting amicus briefs from other states (Idaho et al.; Kentucky)
Respondent briefs
- Smiths respondent brief.
- Supporting amicus brief from American Psychological Association (APA), American Psychiatric Assocation (ApA), and Alabama APA.
- Supporting amicus brief from AAIDD et al.
Final comment. Those from school psychology should make note that we three consultants involved in drafting the APA/ApA,AL-APA brief all had our original educational roots in the profession of school psychology. Furthermore, SP professionals should note the significant number of authoritative references to publications authored by school psychologists in the respondents briefs, as well as in some of the petitioners briefs. I’ve been doing expert consultation, writing declarations, and testifying in court re: Atkins ID cases since 2009. Joel Schneider and Cecil Reynolds have also been active in a similar capacity. There are more psychologists who come from, or are affiliated with, the field of school psychology who have been prominent consultants/experts to lawyers and the courts re Atkins cases.
Perhaps some of these briefs should be assigned readings (in intellectual assessment courses or special topic seminars) for graduate students being trained in the art and science of intelligence testing and interpretation.
