Jurisprudence
May 23, 20269:00 AM
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The Supreme Court handed down a perplexing 5–4 decision on Thursday in Hamm v. Smith, a dispute over capital punishment that was poised to be one of the most important cases of the term. The majority dismissed Hamm as improvidently granted, sparing the life of the defendant, Joseph Smith, and rejecting Alabama’s request for freer rein to execute intellectually disabled people. Four justices dissented, hinting at a sharp conflict behind the scenes over the case’s potential to forever diminish constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishments.
On this week’s Slate Plus bonus episode of Amicus, co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the decision and what it signals about the Roberts court, the death penalty, and the current state of jurisprudence around executing mentally disabled defendants. An excerpt from their conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.
