Hamm v. Smith · ¶129

One might have expected that the Atkins Court, in imposing a new categorical rule, would have also defined the category in question. Yet Atkins did not. Id., at 317. That void entailed two consequences. First, States and lower courts would need to develop their own categorical definitions that were susceptible of judicial administration. Ibid. Second, because “[i]ntelligence, as measured by IQ, has predominated as the primary criterion for diagnosing” intellectual disability, it followed that IQ would feature in these definitions and play a central role in adjudicating Atkins claims. American Association on Mental Retardation, Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports 25 (10th ed. 2002) (AAMR); see, e. g., id., at 21–23 (cataloging the consistent use of an “IQ Cutoff ” as a diagnostic requirement in the five decades leading up to Atkins); AAMR 66 (noting…

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