The Kavanaugh-Barrett Enigma in Death Penalty Cases

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Hamm v. Smith, a capital punishment case that had the potential to upend decades of constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishments, has left many perplexed. The 5–4 vote, with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joining their liberal colleagues in dismissing the case as improvidently granted, is particularly puzzling given the conservative supermajority’s generally supportive stance on capital punishment.

The majority’s decision to spare the life of Joseph Smith has been hailed by some as a significant victory for death penalty opponents. However, this outcome raises more questions than it answers. Why did Kavanaugh and Barrett, two justices who have consistently voted to restrict individual rights in favor of state power, suddenly find themselves on the same side as their liberal colleagues? And what does this surprising decision say about the Roberts court’s approach to capital punishment?

A closer examination of the oral arguments in Hamm v. Smith reveals that Alabama’s lawyers struggled to articulate a coherent theory for weighing multiple IQ scores in determining intellectual disability. Their lack of clarity, coupled with attempts to justify arbitrary and potentially manipulative methods for calculating disability, seemed to frustrate Kavanaugh and Barrett during the arguments. It appears these two justices recognized the case as flawed and chose not to create a clear constitutional rule out of it.

However, this decision has also been met with dissent from the conservative bloc, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, who argued in a separate dissent that the Eighth Amendment poses no bar to the execution of intellectually disabled people. This stance is a stark departure from 25 years of precedent holding such executions unconstitutional and has left many concerned about the potential for the court to overturn these protections.

The Hamm v. Smith decision serves as a reminder that even in the face of clear constitutional principles, the Roberts court’s approach to capital punishment remains unpredictable. Kavanaugh and Barrett’s unexpected alignment with their liberal colleagues has given some hope that the court may be moving towards a more nuanced understanding of intellectual disability and its implications for death penalty cases.

Alabama’s struggles in presenting a coherent argument on IQ scores have been widely criticized, with many attributing the majority’s decision to dismiss the case as a result of the state’s poor lawyering. However, this raises questions about the role that incompetent or disorganized advocacy plays in shaping Supreme Court decisions. In a system where access to justice and competent representation can be limited for marginalized communities, cases like Hamm v. Smith highlight the potential consequences of a lack of effective advocacy.

The court’s decision to dismiss the case as improvidently granted raises concerns about the impact that such dismissals may have on future capital punishment cases. The Hamm v. Smith decision marks a departure from the conservative supermajority’s generally supportive stance on capital punishment, and Kavanaugh and Barrett’s unexpected alignment with their liberal colleagues has been seen as a significant victory for death penalty opponents.

However, this shift also raises questions about the long-term implications of this change in approach. Has the court reached a tipping point where even some conservatives are beginning to question the constitutionality of executing intellectually disabled people? Or is this decision simply an anomaly in an otherwise conservative-dominated court? Only time will tell.

The Roberts court’s approach to capital punishment remains a subject of ongoing debate and analysis. While some have hailed Kavanaugh and Barrett’s unexpected alignment with their liberal colleagues as evidence that the court is moving towards a more nuanced understanding of intellectual disability, others have expressed concerns about the potential for future reversals. The Hamm v. Smith decision serves as a reminder that even in the face of clear constitutional principles, the Roberts court’s approach to capital punishment remains unpredictable.

As the Supreme Court continues to grapple with the complexities of death penalty cases, one thing is certain: the Hamm v. Smith decision will have far-reaching implications for future capital punishment cases. The court’s power and influence in shaping our nation’s laws and policies cannot be overstated, and the Hamm v. Smith decision serves as a stark reminder of this reality.

In the end, Kavanaugh and Barrett’s unexpected alignment with their liberal colleagues has left many wondering what’s next for capital punishment cases at the Supreme Court. Will they continue to align themselves with their liberal colleagues on issues related to intellectual disability? Or will they ultimately sign onto Justice Thomas’ dissent, potentially paving the way for a reversal of 25 years of precedent?