A Glimmer of Mercy in a Bleak Landscape

The recent decision in Hamm v. Smith has sent shockwaves through the legal community, with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joining liberal justices to dismiss the case. This move appears to be a rare moment of compassion from the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, sparing the life of death row inmate Joseph Smith. However, this decision reveals more about the complexities and contradictions within the Roberts court than initially meets the eye.

The case was contentious, with Alabama seeking to expand its leeway in executing intellectually disabled individuals. The state’s lawyers struggled to provide a coherent argument for how they should weigh multiple IQ scores, advocating instead for flexibility to do “funny math” as needed. During oral arguments, both Kavanaugh and Barrett seemed taken aback by this approach, hinting that they may have been more inclined to uphold existing constitutional protections.

The dissenting opinions from Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch offer a stark contrast to this narrative. They would have used the case to dismantle 25 years of precedent protecting against the execution of intellectually disabled individuals. In his separate dissent, Justice Thomas argued that it is perfectly constitutional to execute people with cognitive abilities similar to those of a young child.

Kavanaugh and Barrett’s decision not to sign onto this extreme view is heartening but raises more questions than answers. Have they genuinely found common ground with liberal justices on this issue, or are they merely biding their time until a future case presents a cleaner opportunity to push their agenda? The implications for the broader fight against capital punishment and intellectual disability rights remain unclear.

In recent years, the Roberts court has shown a willingness to erode constitutional protections in the name of state’s rights. This decision is an exception but not a guarantee that conservative justices will continue down this path. As Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern noted on their Amicus podcast, “it’s a really weird outcome” that defies expectations.

One possible interpretation is that Kavanaugh and Barrett were unwilling to invest the necessary political capital in upholding Alabama’s flailing argument. By dismissing the case, they avoided having to take an official stance on the constitutionality of executing intellectually disabled individuals. This would be a pragmatic decision rather than a principled one, raising questions about their true motivations.

The Hamm v. Smith decision highlights the complex interplay between politics and law within the Supreme Court. Conservative justices may not always be in lockstep, and there are moments when individual judges find themselves at odds with their ideological brethren. This case is a reminder that even in contentious cases, unexpected alliances and surprising outcomes can occur.

As the country grapples with the complexities of capital punishment and intellectual disability rights, this decision offers a glimmer of hope amidst a bleak landscape. However, it also serves as a warning: do not assume that conservative justices will always stick to their guns or follow a predictable script. In Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion, he wrote, “the court should overrule 25 years of precedent” and revisit the constitutionality of executing intellectually disabled individuals.

It remains to be seen whether this decision will prove to be a reprieve for Joseph Smith and others like him, or merely a temporary stay of execution. One thing is certain: in the world of Supreme Court jurisprudence, nothing is ever as it seems.