Document Type
Blog Post
Publication Date
4-14-2026
Abstract
The Supreme Court’s stance on the death penalty has evolved over time. In Furman v. Georgia, the Court held that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment, only to reinstate it in Gregg v. Georgia four years later. As the Court continued to interpret “evolving standards of decency,” it later categorically barred the execution of defendants with an intellectual disability in Atkins v. Virginia. To determine if an individual is intellectually disabled, they must demonstrate subaverage adaptive skills that existed before age eighteen. The Court has also recognized that IQ scores carry a ±5 margin of error and has prohibited states from precluding further evaluation solely on a score above 70. When a person’s IQ score falls within the margin of error, they must be allowed to submit additional evidence of an intellectual disability. Despite this, states retain discretion to determine how an intellectual disability is proven and identified. As a result, states that have not abolished the death penalty do not have a uniform standard in determining whether a defendant has an intellectual disability that would spare them from execution. Thus, states apply varying IQ thresholds and assign different burdens of proof for defendants to establish an intellectual disability.
Recommended Citation
Sotomayor, Chole Quinn, "The Fate of Atkins in a Post-Dobbs Era: How State Discretion Risks Harm to Intellectually Disabled and Black Defendants" (2026). Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice (ERSJ) Blog. 110.
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/ersj-blog/110
