Hamm v. Smith · ¶38

The principal dissent claims that the Court should have taken this opportunity to provide “much-needed guidance” to lower courts. Post, at 316 (opinion of Alito, J.). At the outset, there is no evidence that the lower courts are desperate for guidance; there is no split and neither state courts nor federal courts have expressed substantial confusion over how to assess multiple IQ scores. See, e. g., Black v. Car penter, 866 F. 3d 734, 743–749 (CA6 2017) (affirming the District Court's review of 10 scores and expert testimony interpreting those scores); Jackson v. Payne, 9 F. 4th 646, 653 (CA8 2021) (similar). Nor is there a barrage of Atkins cases involving multiple IQ scores; in the 12 years since Hall v. Florida, 572 U. S. 701, was decided, Smith's counsel identifes only 43 Atkins cases across the country in which courts evaluated multiple IQ scores. Brief for Respondent 9, and n. 1.

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