Hall v. Florida
| Hall v. Florida | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
| Argued March 3, 2014 Decided May 27, 2014 |
|||||
| Full case name | Freddie Lee Hall, Petitioner v. Florida | ||||
| Docket nos. | 12-10882 | ||||
| Citations | 572 U.S. ___ (more) | ||||
| Holding | |||||
| A Florida law allowing the execution of borderline mentally handicapped individuals violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. | |||||
| Court membership | |||||
|
|||||
| Case opinions | |||||
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan | ||||
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas | ||||
Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bright-line IQ threshold requirement for determining whether someone has an intellectual disability (formerly mental retardation) is unconstitutional in deciding whether they are eligible for the death penalty.[1]
The case fleshed out standards first announced by the Court in Atkins v. Virginia, which left the determination of what constitutes intellectual disability to the states. In Atkins, the Court held that people are intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty if these three conditions are met: 1.) “subaverage intellectual functioning,” meaning low I.Q. scores; 2.) a lack of fundamental social and practical skills; and 3.) the presence of both conditions before age 18.[2] The Atkins court stated I.Q. scores under “approximately 70” typically indicate disability, but the court let the states determine who is mentally disabled and thus cannot be executed.[2]
In Hall the Court narrowed the discretion under which U.S. states can designate an individual convicted of murder as too intellectually incapacitated to be executed.[3] The Court prohibited states in borderline cases from relying only on intelligence test scores to determine whether a death row inmate is eligible to be executed. States must look beyond IQ scores when inmate tests are in the range of 70 to 75. IQ tests have a margin of error, and those inmates whose scores fall within the margin must be allowed to present other evidence of mental disability.[4] The Court further held that the states may not use a "rigid rule" that denies leniency to defendants with severe mental disabilities simply because they score above 70 on an IQ test.[5] Hall had scored a 71 instead of 70 on an I.Q. test.[2] Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority that this "rigid rule, the court now holds, creates an unacceptable risk that persons with an intellectual disability will be executed, and thus is unconstitutional."[5] If an individual claiming intellectual incapacity has an IQ score that falls somewhere between 70 and 75, then that individual’s lawyers must be allowed to offer additional clinical evidence of intellectual deficit, including, most importantly, the inability to learn basic skills and adapt to changing circumstances.[3]
The court also adopted the term "intellectually disabled" to replace "mentally retarded," which had been used in prior opinions. Intellectually disabled refers to people of limited intellectual and adaptive capabilities, according to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, and the term is preferred by the medical profession.[6]
See also
References
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
