Connect with us

Politics

Justices Decline to Rule in Death Penalty Case Over Intellectual Disabilities

Published

on

Justices Decline to Rule in Death Penalty Case Over Intellectual Disabilities

A splintered Supreme Court on Thursday declined to rule in a case dealing with how states should assess the intellectual disabilities of capital defendants to determine if they should be spared the death penalty.

Two decades ago, the court barred the execution of people with mental disabilities as a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

That ruling, in Atkins v. Virginia, gave states leeway to determine their own processes for deciding who was intellectually disabled. It led to follow-up cases from Florida and Texas in which the court further limited capital punishment.

Twenty-seven states permit the death penalty, but they differ in how they determine intellectual disability.

On Thursday, a majority of justices took a pass on deciding how states and lower courts should resolve cases in which defendants had taken I.Q. tests multiple times and received varying results, as well as the extent to which states must consider a broader evaluation of evidence beyond I.Q. test scores in deciding if a person is disabled.

Advertisement

The case involved Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama man, who was sentenced to death after being convicted of murdering a man he planned to rob in 1997. In the years before and after the murder, Mr. Smith took five I.Q. tests with scores ranging from 72 to 78.

The state sought to execute Mr. Smith, noting that the key part of Alabama’s law on mental disability turned on whether defendants had scored 70 or lower on the test. But a lower court found Mr. Smith was intellectually disabled, in part because the tests had a margin of error. Alabama asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.

The court’s brief unsigned order dismissed the case as “improvidently granted,” meaning the justices punted, and sent the matter back to the lower courts.

As a result, Mr. Smith will be spared the death penalty and resentenced, his lawyer said on Thursday.

“The District Court listened carefully to experts on all sides and concluded that Mr. Smith is intellectually disabled. The Supreme Court declined to disturb that finding,” his attorney Kacey L. Keeton, of the Federal Defender office for the Middle District of Alabama, said in a statement. “For Mr. Smith and his family, today brings profound relief.”

Advertisement

The Alabama attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Although the Supreme Court did not resolve the key question in Mr. Smith’s case, it prompted several separate opinions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the record in Mr. Smith’s case was incomplete and the court could not use it to “provide any meaningful guidance” on how lower courts should assess multiple I.Q. scores.

“Proceeding without a more developed record or lower court opinions is especially perilous. That is because the differences between methods used to assess multiple I.Q. scores raise complicated questions on which even experts may disagree,” she wrote, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Four justices dissented, saying the court had failed to address a recurring question that has “led to confusion and unsound analysis in lower courts.”

Advertisement

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the majority “shies away from its obligation to provide workable rules for capital cases,” doing a disservice to state criminal justice systems and “victims of horrific murders.”

Without clear rules, court hearings over multiple I.Q. scores will be “little more than battles of experts” and “whether a defendant lives or dies will hinge on which expert a judge finds more credible,” he wrote, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

Writing only for himself, Justice Thomas said the court should go even further and overturn its decision in the landmark Atkins case — a move that would significantly scale back protections against executing the mentally disabled.

Nothing in the nation’s history, he wrote, “suggests that there is anything unlawful about executing murderers now protected by Atkins — let alone one such as Smith who reads at an 11th-grade level and has never scored below 71 on a single I.Q. test.”

Medical and disability groups have warned that a narrow, test-focused approach conflicts with previous Supreme Court rulings and could increase the risk that people with intellectual disabilities are executed.

Advertisement

The Trump administration, which lifted a moratorium on the federal death penalty last January, supported the state’s position in part. D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, said states had discretion to determine whether a defendant was intellectually disabled and urged the court to defer to Alabama’s assessment.

Under Alabama law, to avoid execution, defendants like Mr. Smith are required to show “significant subaverage intellectual functioning at the time the crime was committed, to show significant deficits in adaptive behavior at the time the crime was committed, and to show that these problems manifested themselves before the defendant reached the age of 18.”

After lengthy litigation in state and federal court, a district court judge found in 2021 that Mr. Smith should have the opportunity to show he was intellectually disabled. When a score is close to but higher than 70, the judge said he “must be allowed to present additional evidence of intellectual disability.”

The judge noted that even one score of 72 could mean Mr. Smith’s I.Q. was actually as low as 69 because of the standard error of measurement. The district court judge also found Mr. Smith deficient in social and interpersonal skills, self-direction, independent living and academics.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the ruling, citing two Supreme Court decisions that said that when a test score, adjusted for the margin of error, is 70 or less, the defendant must be able to provide additional evidence of intellectual disability.

Advertisement

In response to an earlier request from the Supreme Court in the matter, the 11th Circuit said its finding was based on a “holistic approach” and review of evidence, not just a single low score.

Politics

Trump’s Plaques on the Presidential ‘Walk of Fame,’ Fact-Checked and Annotated by Historians

Published

on

Trump’s Plaques on the Presidential ‘Walk of Fame,’ Fact-Checked and Annotated by Historians

In a well-trafficked walkway linking the West Wing to the White House residence, President Trump has recast history with gold-lettered plaques that summarize each of the 47 U.S. presidencies.

They are peppered with falsehoods, misrepresentations, insults, praise, self-promotion and erratic capitalizations.

Advertisement

Attendees at a Rose Garden dinner mingled near the plaques in May. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

The Times photographed each plaque and asked eight historians who have studied and written about both Democratic and Republican presidents to examine and annotate the exhibit, which spans 5,400 words.

Advertisement
  • Nicole Anslover

    Florida Atlantic University

  • Portrait of Douglas Brinkley

    Douglas Brinkley

    Rice University

  • Portrait of David Greenberg

    David Greenberg

    Rutgers University

    Advertisement
  • Portrait of Timothy Naftali

    Timothy Naftali

    Columbia University

  • Portrait of Larry Sabato

    Larry Sabato

    University of Virginia

  • Portrait of Daryl Scott

    Daryl Scott

    Morgan State University

  • Portrait of Marc Selverstone

    Marc Selverstone

    University of Virginia

  • Portrait of Sean Wilentz

    Sean Wilentz

    Princeton University

    Advertisement

The historians noted that the plaques are not a dispassionate museum display. Rather, they said, they are a skewed narrative of history by Mr. Trump, with him as the protagonist. The plaques are written in Mr. Trump’s signature hyperbolic style, as seen in his social media posts.

Asked about the plaques, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, ​said, “As a student of history, many were written directly by the president himself.” The Times shared the historians’ observations with the White House, which declined to comment on the specific points in the annotations. It also declined to provide details on the sources Mr. Trump and others used to write the plaques.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump showed the plaques to New York Times reporters in January. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

The commentary surrounding more recent presidents — like Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Barack Obama — adopts a sharper and more partisan tone. While entries for earlier presidents are less combative, they recast history in a way that favors Mr. Trump’s priorities and the unprecedented actions of his administration. The exhibit “is not so much bad history as it is anti-historical,” said Sean Wilentz, an American history professor at Princeton University.

Tariffs are mentioned 18 times. Major scandals are left out (Teapot Dome), or not explained (Watergate). The Monroe Doctrine — which Mr. Trump has misinterpreted, historians say, and used to justify U.S. interventions in the Western Hemisphere — is repeatedly lauded.

The White House ballroom project — which is still under construction and caught in a legal battle — is described as already built. Mr. Trump himself appears in the capsules of six predecessors. And the description of the first year of his second term takes up more space than the summaries for the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt combined.

Advertisement

Below is the full, unedited text of the plaques, along with a selection of historians’ comments that has been edited for clarity. While the annotations offer insight across the plaques, they are not meant to be comprehensive. Unannotated copy may also include falsehoods or misrepresentations.

Advertisement

Explore the plaques, with  annotations from historians

To choose a presidency, click on a numbered box or search by name. To see a historian’s annotation, click on a highlighted phrase.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

House Dem lashes out at GOP efforts to probe foreign donations with stunning claim on motive

Published

on

House Dem lashes out at GOP efforts to probe foreign donations with stunning claim on motive

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., lashed out at Republican efforts to investigate a Democratic fundraising apparatus on Wednesday afternoon, characterizing the ongoing fraud probe as the most recent instance of GOP retribution against Black women in power.

“Over and over again, Donald Trump’s Department of Justice has harassed Black women with bogus lawsuits,” Sewell said on Wednesday morning.

Sewell’s criticisms come as as Republican lawmakers probe ActBlue, a Democratic fundraising and campaign organization, and its CEO and president, Regina Wallace-Jones, for potentially accepting illegal donations.

In particular, House Republicans are demanding that ActBlue turn over international communications, probing whether the organization knowingly misled lawmakers and dodged subpoenas to hide weaknesses in its screening process to weed out illegal, overseas donations.

Advertisement

DEM FUNDRAISING GIANT IN THE HOT SEAT AS GOP LAWMAKERS DEMAND ANSWERS OVER DODGED SUBPOENA

Ranking Member Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala. speaks during a House Administration Subcommittee on Elections hearing on Capitol Hill on May 20, 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The review by lawmakers coincides with an April request from President Donald Trump to investigate the group.

“There is evidence to suggest that foreign nationals are seeking to misuse online fundraising platforms to improperly influence American elections,” the White House said in a press release.

Wallace-Jones has called the investigation baseless, maintaining that ActBlue applies high scrutiny for its donations processing.

Advertisement

JASMINE CROCKETT CLAIMS TRUMP IS ‘TERRIFIED OF SMART, BOLD BLACK WOMEN’ AFTER PRESIDENT’S ‘LOW IQ’ JAB

Regina Wallace-Jones of Palo Alto soaks up the first evening of the DNC Convention at the United Center in Chicago, IL on Monday, August 19, 2024. (Photo by Yalonda M. James/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

“Our approach is multilayered, with checks and confirmations occurring throughout the donation process to verify donors and donor information,” she told Fox News Digital in a statement earlier this year.

Among other safeguards, Wallace-Jones said the organization requires Card Verification Values (CVVs) for credit card donations, uses IP addresses, a kind of digital footprint, to identify foreign-sourced contributions, applies an industry-standard Address Verification System (AVS) and manually reviews donations.

To Sewell, the investigation into ActBlue and Wallace-Jones is tainted by other investigations into black women who have crossed Trump in the past.

Advertisement

“This investigation is just one more example of Republicans and President Trump using power of his office to harass and intimidate anyone willing to challenge him. The Trump Department of Justice has used its power to intimidate and victimize communities of color, especially Black Americans,” Sewell said.

ACTBLUE CHIEF HEADS TO CAPITOL HILL HOT SEAT AS DONOR FRAUD PROBE INTENSIFIES

A banner featuring an image of President Donald Trump is displayed on the facade of the U.S. Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 20, 2026. (Drew Angerer/AFP/Getty Image)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We should not forget the harassment of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook, the harassment of the New York Attorney General, Tish James and the harassment of our colleague Congresswoman LaMonica McIver,” Sewell said, listing off a number of similar cases.

Advertisement

“It is not surprising that this Republican-led committee is now attacking ActBlue and its CEO, Ms. Wallace-Jones,” Sewell said.

Continue Reading

Politics

Democrat Fiona Ma, Republican Gloria Romero to face off in race for lieutenant governor

Published

on

Democrat Fiona Ma, Republican Gloria Romero to face off in race for lieutenant governor

State Treasurer Fiona Ma and former California Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero have been declared the two winners of a crowded primary election for lieutenant governor, securing themselves spots on the November ballot.

Ma is a Democrat. Romero is a former Democrat who said she registered as a Republican after splitting with Democrats over the push to oust President Biden as the party’s presidential nominee in 2024.

Both were declared as the top-two winners by the Associated Press. Under California’s primary system, the first and second place finisher advances to the November general election, regardless of their political affiliation.

Ma is a certified public accountant serving as state treasurer. She previously sat on the California Board of Equalization and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. She also served three terms in the California Assembly.

Advertisement

Romero is an adjunct professor at Pepperdine School of Public Policy. She served as a Democrat in the Assembly and state Senate, becoming the Senate’s first woman majority leader in 2005.

Other notable candidates included former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs and Josh Fryday, a member of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s cabinet. Both are Democrats.

The position is largely ceremonial. The lieutenant governor serves on various boards that oversee the University of California, California State University and community college systems, and can be called upon to break a tie in the state Senate. If the sitting governor dies, resigns or is removed from office, the lieutenant governor would assume the role.

Ma and Romero have offered some similar viewpoints. Both candidates previously expressed support for the death penalty and opposition to the state’s plan to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035.

Neither candidate supports the controversial Billionaire’s Tax Act. Romero, however, has further vowed to shun all potential tax increases.

Advertisement

Ma and Romero will now face off in November. The winner will replace Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, who is finishing her second term and could not seek reelection. Kounalakis instead ran for state treasurer.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending