Hamm v. Smith · ¶118

Atkins is egregiously wrong, unworkable, and has created no legitimate reliance interests. Ramos, 590 U. S., at 121– 122. Atkins is egregiously wrong because it is irreconcilable with original meaning and was poorly reasoned from the start, as more recent Eighth Amendment precedents discrediting its methodology show. See Part II–A, supra; At kins, 536 U. S., at 321–328 (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting); id., at 337–354 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Atkins is also unworkable, as its progeny and this case demonstrate. See Part I, supra. Finally, prospective murderers who would argue that they are too unintelligent to be executed are not planning murders in “reliance” on this Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Ramos, 590 U. S., at 122 (opinion of Kavanaugh, J.). Nor, if they were, would such a reliance interest be “legitimate.” Ibid. Stare decisis is therefore no obstacle to restoring the…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.