Hamm v. Smith · ¶39

The guidance the principal dissent wishes to provide appears to be, in part, that courts should consult the methods outlined in the American Psychological Association's Handbook of Intellectual and Development Disabilities (APA Handbook). Post, at 322. It is hard to imagine, however, that courts need this lesson, given that this Court's cases have repeatedly explained that “[i]n determining who qualifes as intellectually disabled, it is proper to consult the medical community's opinions,” Hall, 572 U. S., at 710, including “leading diagnostic manuals,” Moore v. Texas, 581 U. S. 1, 13 (2017); see Atkins, 536 U. S., at 318 (considering the medical community's framework).

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