On March 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argu­ments in Hall v. Florida, a case address­ing the strict stan­dard for intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty that Florida uses to deter­mine if inmates are exempt from exe­cu­tion. Under the Court’s 2002 deci­sion in Atkins v. Virginia, indi­vid­u­als with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties (men­tal retar­da­tion) are con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly barred from receiv­ing the death penal­ty. The deci­sion ​“le[ft] to the State[s] the task of devel­op­ing appro­pri­ate ways to enforce the con­sti­tu­tion­al restric­tion,” result­ing in var­i­ous stan­dards for deter­min­ing intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties across the states. Unlike almost all oth­er states, Florida rigid­ly requires an IQ of 70 or below to demon­strate men­tal retar­da­tion, with no allowance for the test’s mar­gin of error. Freddie Hall, the death-row peti­tion­er in this case, was first diag­nosed with intel­le­cu­tal dis­abil­i­ties in ele­men­tary school. Prior to the Atkins, a Florida court deter­mined that ​“Freddie Lee Hall has been men­tal­ly retard­ed his entire life.” Despite these find­ings, Hall is still fac­ing exe­cu­tion. Cornell Law Professor John Blume said, while the issue is lim­it­ed, the case is impor­tant, ​“to make clear that states can­not nar­row a cat­e­gor­i­cal ban cre­at­ed by the Supreme Court intend­ed to pro­tect a vul­ner­a­ble group from wrongful execution.”

(J. Blume, ​“Hall v. Florida: Florida’s Attempt to Limit Atkins’ Constitutional Protection,” American Constitution Society Blog, February 20, 2014). See U.S. Supreme Court and Intellectual Disability.

Tags
Citation Guide