Hamm v. Smith · ¶53

Thus, in both Hall and Moore, this Court confronted At kins claimants with multiple scores above 70 (and none below 70), yet still held that courts should consider the scores in light of “additional evidence of intellectual disability, including testimony regarding adaptive defcits.” Hall, 572 U. S., at 723. At no point did the Court require, or even suggest, that courts must analyze the scores by combining them using any specific method that the principal dissent contends is necessary. The District Court's holistic approach was thus squarely in line with Hall and Moore.

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