Two Conservatives Justices Just Took a Surprising Step to Save a Death Row Inmate's Life. Why?

The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Hamm v. Smith, dismissing the case as improvidently granted. Joseph Smith will not be executed, and Alabama’s request for broader authority to carry out capital punishment against intellectually disabled people was rejected. The majority’s action avoided a merits ruling on constitutional limits for cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Four justices dissented, signaling disagreement about the court’s handling of the case. The vote included Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the three liberals to dismiss, while other conservatives dissented loudly. The outcome preserved constitutional protections without resolving the underlying dispute about executing mentally disabled defendants.

"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."

"Instead, the majority just tossed the case. Joseph Smith, the defendant will not be executed. That's a big win in a death penalty case before this court. But I guess the burning question is: Why did Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh team up with the liberals to spare his life, and do so by just kicking the case to the curb? And I know the answer is not because it's a 3-3-3 court and they're the neutral centrists."

"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."

Read at Slate Magazine