Supreme Court weighs role of IQ scores in debate over execution of disabled people
joe daniel price/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — More than 20 years ago, the Supreme Court outlawed the execution of intellectually disabled people convicted of capital crimes as “cruel and unusual” punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.
In a major case from Alabama before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the justices are asked to clarify who qualifies as “intellectually disabled” and what role intelligence quotient — also known as IQ — test scores play in making the determination.
Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama man who brought the case, confessed to a 1997 murder during a robbery, but challenged his death sentence on grounds he has had “substantially subaverage intellectual functioning” since a young age.
Smith has taken five separate IQ tests over nearly 40 years, scoring 75 in 1979, 74 in 1982, 72 in 1998, 78 in 2014 and 74 in 2017.
People below 70 are generally considered to have an intellectual disability, but major American medical groups urge a holistic assessment that also looks at social and practical skills.
The groups note that standardized test scores alone should not be conclusive. Smith’s score of 72, for example, could be 69 when factoring the 3-point margin of error.
“Intellectual disability diagnoses based solely on IQ test scores are faulty and invalid,” attorneys for the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association told the court in a legal brief. “But IQ test scores remain relevant; IQ tests are a scientifically valid means to ascertain estimates of an individual’s intellectual ability. The key is to understand both the value of IQ tests and their limits.”
Smith, who allegedly suffered physical and verbal abuse as a child, consistently functioned two grade-levels below his placement in school, according to court documents. Smith’s school classified him as “Educable Mentally Retarded” in 7th grade before he eventually dropped out.
Two lower federal courts ruled that a holistic analysis of Smith’s IQ scores and other evidence, including his behavioral history and school records, proved he is intellectually disabled and should spend life behind bars rather than face execution.
Alabama wants the justices to toss out that assessment.
“Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled, and the Eighth Amendment does not override the death sentence he earned for murdering Durk Van Dam,” the state argued in its brief to the court. “Whether and how to weigh multiple IQ scores is left to state discretion.”
The state says intellectual disability can only be proven by an IQ score of 70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case will determine whether Smith lives or dies.
More broadly, the ruling could determine how many other borderline intellectually disabled people on death row could be able to convert their death sentences into life behind bars.
By one estimate, as many as 20% of the 2,100 people on death row in the U.S. may have some degree of intellectual disability, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
A ruling in the case — Hamm v. Smith — is expected by the end of June 2026.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill on October 6, 2025 in Washington, DC. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate on Thursday failed to advance Sen. Ron Johnson’s bill that would have provided pay to some federal workers during the shutdown.
The “Shutdown Fairness Act” — put forward by Johnson — failed by a vote of 55-45. It would have needed 60 votes to advance.
Democratic Sens. John Fetterman, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock voted with all Republicans to advance the bill. All other Democrats voted against it, effectively blocking it from advancing.
While the bill would not have ended the shutdown, it would allow some federal employees to get paid.
Johnson’s bill would have provided appropriations to pay the troops and “excepted employees” of federal agencies being affected by the shutdown. That includes employees determined by the Office of Personnel Management to be performing emergency work, or for contractors who provide support to those employees.
Democrats were reluctant to provide votes out of concerns that Johnson’s bill gives the administration and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought too broad of authority to determine which employees would get paid and which wouldn’t.
Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen offered an alternative bill to Johnson’s that would pay all federal employees. Johnson blocked that proposal — along with another similar option from Democrats. Democrats attempted to pass both of these bills unanimously, so Johnson’s objection alone was enough to block them.
Johnson noted that the proposals Democrats offered are “95%” similar. But he noted that the Democrat proposal is different because it only lasts through this fiscal year, includes furloughed employees and limits reduction in force.
The reduction in force issue was a challenge for Johnson, but he said he was open to negotiation on it.
“I don’t think we should limit the chief executive’s ability to properly manage the federal government and make the tough decision sometimes to reduce the workforce,” Johnson said. “That’s something we can talk about.”
Johnson said he blocked the bills in part because he wants Democrats to allow for debate on his legislation so a solution can actually be reached. The best way to work toward a solution for federal employees, Johnson said, was to begin debate on a bill rather than trying to pass one unanimously as Democrats did.
Federal employees, he said, need that.
“To see that they get their paycheck, so they don’t have to work Door Dash, so they don’t have to go to food banks, so they’re not under that stress — I am asking in good faith, let’s figure out how to get that done,” Johnson said.
The vote on the bill came as federal workers will miss their first full paycheck on Friday.
The legislation put Democrats in an interesting spot, as Republicans work to brand votes against this bill as votes against paying federal workers.
Van Hollen attacked Johnson’s bill, saying it would “essentially weaponize the government shutdown to allow President Trump to decide who works and gets paid and who doesn’t work and doesn’t get paid.”
“Our belief is that no federal employee, no one should bear the burden or be punished for a shutdown they have nothing to do with. So our view is that we want to make sure everybody gets paid at the end of the day.”
When pressed on why he would not, therefore, support the clean bill Republican’s have put forward 11 times, Van Hollen said it’s important to both pay Americans and protect health care.
“Of course we want to open the government. That’s the best way to address this issue. We also need to address these other big issues,” Van Hollen said.
No vote is expected for Thursday on the clean short-term funding bill. With senators leaving town for the weekend, the shutdown will drag on to Monday.
U.S. President Donald Trump tours the Ford River Rouge Complex on January 13, 2026, in Dearborn, Michigan. Trump is visiting Michigan where he will participate in a tour of the Ford River Rouge complex and later give remarks to the Detroit Economic Club. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon was expected to send additional military assets to the Middle East in coming days, according to several people familiar with the discussions, including possibly the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group.
Such a move is considered a typical precaution at times of heightened tensions because of the 30,000 troops stationed throughout the region in countries like Qatar, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
The added firepower would serve as a deterrent to attacks by adversaries against U.S. bases. But it also would give President Donald Trump additional options to strike Iran later if he chooses.
Examples of assets that could be surged include an aircraft carrier strike group accompanied by cruisers and missile destroyers, as well as Air Force fighter squadrons and land-based air missile defense systems.
Discussions of the additional military assets come as Trump threatened to attack Iran’s government because of violent clashes with protesters. Officials in Tehran responded by threatening to strike back at U.S. bases if he followed through.
According to one person familiar with the discussions this week, Trump was told that a military strike against Iran could be extraordinarily dangerous and potentially risk the lives of U.S. service members in the region, particularly if the government in Tehran felt it was on the brink of collapse. NBC News was first to report this detail.
On Wednesday, Trump told reporters he opted against strikes for now because the U.S. had been told “on good authority” that the killing of protestors in Iran had stopped. Trump also said Friday that 800 planned executions in Iran had been halted, a claim that could not be immediately verified.
In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi denied Tehran had any plans to execute protesters.
Several sources said there had been long-running concerns among U.S. officials that the military didn’t have the right mix of assets in place to protect against a potential massive retaliatory strike from Iran, given that Trump had surged much of the military’s force to the Caribbean to support the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.
There is currently no aircraft carrier in the Middle East, although officials say there are six Navy ships, including three missile destroyers. The Pentagon declined to comment.
If the Lincoln is deployed to the Middle East from the South China Sea, it’s expected to take longer than a week to arrive. The USS Lincoln was spotted earlier this week on satellite sailing away from the Philippines.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) (R), joined by Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) (C) and Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), speaks to reporters after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not appear for a closed-door deposition in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 14, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans are set to take the next steps on Wednesday to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with committee subpoenas related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
On Wednesday, Oversight Chairman James Comer is set to hold a markup of two resolutions finding the Clintons in contempt of Congress after they defied a subpoena for a deposition with the committee last week.
“The Clintons are not above the law, and the House Oversight Committee will move to hold them in contempt of Congress,” Comer, a Republican, said in a statement last week. “If Democrats refuse to hold the Clintons accountable, they will expose themselves as hypocrites.”
The Clintons have insisted that the subpoena is without legal merit, fighting the subpoena for months.
Last summer, Republicans and Democrats on Oversight’s Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee approved a motion to issue subpoenas to 10 individuals, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, for testimony related to their investigation into Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Republicans have pointed at the former president’s travels on Epstein’s private aircraft in the early 2000s and the Clinton “family’s past relationship” with Epstein and Maxwell.
The contempt resolution is expected to advance out of the committee Wednesday afternoon — teeing up a full vote on the House floor days later. The timing of floor consideration won’t become clear until after the committee markup.
If Democrats oppose the floor vote, Speaker Mike Johnson can afford to lose just two Republican votes before a third GOP defector could upset passage.
The resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — under the Department of Justice — for possible criminal prosecution. A simple majority is needed to clear a contempt resolution, though it does not require passage in the Senate.
Besides defying the subpoena, neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and denies having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Last month, in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department released several photographs of former President Clinton apparently taken during his international travels with Epstein and Maxwell between 2002 and 2003.
Following that disclosure, a spokesperson for the two-term Democratic president argued that the Trump administration released those images to shield the Trump White House “from what comes next, or from what they’ll try to hide forever.”
For months, David Kendall, the Clintons’ lawyer, has continuously argued that the Clintons have no information relevant to the committee’s investigation and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony.
Comer wrote in a letter to Kendall in October that the committee is “skeptical” that the Clintons have only limited information, and argued it was up to the committee, not the Clintons, to make determinations of the value of their testimony.
“[T]he Committee believes that it should be provided in a deposition setting, where the Committee can best assess its breadth and value,” Comer wrote.
Comer said in a statement on Tuesday that Bill Clinton’s lawyers made an offer for Comer, Ranking Member Robert Garcia and two members of each of their staffs to have a conversation with only former President Bill Clinton in New York. A Comer spokesperson said he “rejected the Clintons’ ridiculous offer.”
“The House Oversight Committee rejects the Clintons’ unreasonable demands and will move forward with contempt resolutions on Wednesday due to their continued defiance of lawful subpoenas,” Comer wrote in the statement.
In response to Comer’s statement, Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña told ABC News that the Clintons “never said no to a transcript.”
“Interviews are on the record and under oath. Whether it was written or typed isn’t why this is happening. If that were the last or only issue, we’d be in a different position,” Ureña said in a statement.
“You keep misdirecting to protect you-know-who and God knows what,” she said, referring to Comer.
Last week, the ex-president’s office publicly released two written declarations — dated Jan. 13 from each of the Clintons — which it said were provided to the Oversight Committee. Both Clintons denied any personal knowledge of the criminal activities of Epstein and Maxwell. Both also denied ever visiting Epstein’s private estate in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
“Once I left office, I devoted my time to the Clinton Foundation. As part of the work of the Foundation, I accepted offers from others to use private air travel for the philanthropic and life-saving humanitarian efforts,” former President Clinton wrote. “In the early 2000s, Mr. Epstein offered a plane that was large enough to accommodate me, my staff, and my U.S. Secret Service detail, in support of visiting the Foundation’s philanthropic work. As has been widely reported, I and my staff took trips on his plane from 2002-2003, visiting Foundation projects and attending conferences and meetings. I have never visited Little St. James Island, and I do not recall speaking to Mr. Epstein for more than a decade prior to his 2019 arrest.”
The former president acknowledges in his declaration that Epstein “may very well have attended” White House events during Clinton’s two terms in office and may have been among the “tens of thousands” of people photographed with him. But Clinton claimed he did “not recall encountering Mr. Epstein, or any specific interaction with him, while in office.”
Each of the Clintons contend that they had no involvement — while in office or afterward — in any criminal investigations or prosecutions of either Epstein or Maxwell.
“I did not direct, oversee or participate in the handling of the investigations or prosecutions of the Epstein or Maxwell cases,” both Clintons stated in their declarations.
Both Clintons also wrote that they could not recall the circumstances of how they met Maxwell — but remember that she later “began a personal relationship with a mutual friend.”
“To be clear, I had no idea of Mr. Epstein’s or Ms. Maxwell’s criminal activities,” former President Clinton wrote. “And, irrespective of any intent either may have ever had, I did not take any action for the purpose of helping them to avoid any type of scrutiny.”
“During my tenure in public office, from 1993 to 2013, I never had any responsibility for, or involvement with, the Department of Justice’s handling of the Epstein and Maxwell investigations or prosecutions,” Hillary Clinton wrote in her declaration.
