Hamm v. Smith · ¶58

The principal dissent further claims that whether the District Court's analysis comported with Alabama law does not bear upon whether Smith's death sentence violated the Constitution. Post, at 333–334. Whether Smith's execution would violate the Eighth Amendment under Atkins, however, is dependent on Alabama's definition of intellectual disability because Atkins “ `le[ft] to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce [this] constitutional restriction.' ” 536 U. S., at 317 (second alteration in original); see also Brumfeld v. Cain, 576 U. S. 305, 308, 314 (2015) (applying state-law definition to determine whether claimant was intellectually disabled for Atkins purposes). The parties here have rightly proceeded on this understanding. Brief for Petitioner 23; Brief for Respondent 39; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 25; see also Petitioner's Post-Hearing Brief,…

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