Because people with intellectual disabilities often require ongoing support throughout their lives, a clinical diagnosis can help them receive special education, home, and community-based services.
SCOTUS hears lawsuit over President Trump’s expansion of powers
The Supreme Court will hear a case to determine President Donald Trump’s powers over federal agencies.
WASHINGTON – Disability rights groups are concerned that a death penalty case in the Supreme Court could impact people with intellectual disabilities far beyond the criminal context.
Judges are considering how to weigh multiple intelligence scores when determining whether a death row inmate’s intellectual disability is so severe that the death penalty would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
But advocates say the outcome of the court’s rules could potentially impact eligibility for government services for people with disabilities, such as health care, educational services and income support.
A 2017 report found that more than one-fifth of working-age people receiving Supplemental Security Income were eligible because of an intellectual disability.
“It’s really important that there is a universal definition of intellectual disability,” said Sheila Wakschlag, general counsel at Arc of America.
Ark and other advocacy groups worry that courts could move toward relying solely on IQ tests and not taking into account other information, such as ability to perform daily activities or how early the problems started.
The Supreme Court rejected this approach in 2014, ruling that Florida cannot use a single IQ test to determine an inmate’s eligibility for the death penalty.
“Intellectual disability is a condition, not a number,” the court said in a 5-4 opinion.
And in 2019, the court said Texas assumed that an IQ score above 70 would rule out intellectual disability and did not take into account the possibility of error in IQ scores.
In a current case in Alabama, courts are considering what to do when most (but not all) people’s IQ scores are above 70, given the margin of error.
Disability rights groups told the court that when IQ scores are ambiguous or their accuracy is in question, other evidence about a person’s functioning should be considered.
During the court’s December oral arguments, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson addressed the mental health community’s position.
“They seem to be saying we need to look at different things to get to the truth of whether or not this person is actually mentally retarded,” she said.
Alito presents specific criteria for death penalty cases
But Justice Samuel Alito suggested that death penalty cases would be more “consistent and predictable” if defendants had to meet specific criteria.
“Isn’t that one of the mainstays of the court’s death penalty jurisprudence, as opposed to a situation where everything is up for grabs in every case?” Alito asked.
According to disability rights groups, death penalty cases are only “a small part of the world of intellectual disability assessment.”
Because people with intellectual disabilities typically require ongoing support throughout their lives, a clinical diagnosis can help them access special education, home- and community-based services, and other supports.
Vakshlak, the Ark’s general counsel, said the Supreme Court has resisted past efforts by states to change their approach to assessing intellectual disabilities.
But if the court reverses course, “those decisions will have implications for courts in other future cases, and for how government agencies in general define this term,” she said.
“Any deviation from the clinical definition is very dangerous,” Wakszlag says.
