WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that could make it harder for convicted murderers to show their lives should be spared because they are intellectually disabled.
The justices are taking up an appeal from Alabama, which wants to put to death a man who lower federal courts found is intellectually disabled and shielded from execution.
The Supreme Court prohibited execution of intellectually disabled people in a landmark ruling in 2002.
Joseph Clifton Smith, 55, has been on death row roughly half his life after his conviction for beating a man to death in 1997.
The issue in Smith's case is what happens when a person has multiple IQ scores that are slightly above 70, which has been widely accepted as a marker of intellectual disability. Smith's five IQ tests produced scores ranging from 72 to 78. Smith had been placed in learning-disabled classes and dropped out of school after seventh grade, his lawyers said. At the time of the crime, he performed math at a kindergarten-level, spelled at a third-grade level and read at a fourth-grade level.
The Supreme Court has held in cases in 2014 and 2017 that states should consider other evidence of disability in borderline cases because of the margin of error in IQ tests.
Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts ruled that Smith is intellectually disabled. The justices had previously sent his case back to the federal appeals court in Atlanta, where the judges affirmed that they had taken a “holistic” approach to Smith's case, seemingly in line with the high court ruling.
But the justices said in June they would take a new look at the case.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said Smith hasn’t met his burden of showing an IQ of 70 or below, and the state wrote in its brief that the discussion of a holistic approach is an unjustified expansion of the Supreme Court rulings.
“He has multiple scores in the seventies,” Marshall said in a phone interview. He said the question is about how to address a continuum of scores. “I don’t think picking and choosing those at the bottom are the way that the court will ultimately go,” Marshall said.
The Trump administration and 20 states are supporting Alabama in the case. Smith “did not meet his burden of proving his IQ was likely 70 or below,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration.
Smith's lawyers argue the lower courts followed the law in conducting a “holistic assessment of all relevant evidence” in a case with borderline IQ scores.
Rights groups focused on disabilities wrote in a brief supporting Smith that "intellectual disability diagnoses based solely on IQ test scores are faulty and invalid.”
Smith was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 beating death of Durk Van Dam in Mobile County. Van Dam was found dead in his pickup truck. Prosecutors said he had been beaten to death with a hammer and robbed of $150, his boots and tools.
A federal judge in 2021 vacated Smith’s death sentence, though she acknowledged “this is a close case.”
Alabama law defines intellectual disability as an IQ of 70 or below, along with significant or substantial deficits in adaptive behavior and the onset of those issues before the age of 18.
Chandler reported from Montgomery, Alabama.
FILE - The Supreme Court facade is seen in Washington, Nov. 4, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed a world-first social media ban for children younger than 16 that took effect Wednesday as families taking back power from tech giants but warned the implementation would be difficult.
Parents reported distraught children discovering they’d been shut out of platforms as the landmark law took effect. Some young children reported fooling the platforms' age estimation technology by drawing on facial hair. Parents and older siblings are also expected to help some children circumvent the restrictions.
“This is the day when Australian families are taking back power from these big tech companies and they’re asserting the right of kids to be kids and for parents to have greater peace of mind,” Albanese told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.
“This reform will change lives. For Australian kids ... allowing them to just have their childhood. For Australian parents, enabling them to have greater peace of mind. But also for the global community, who are looking at Australia and saying: well, if Australia can do it, why can’t we?” Albanese later told a Sydney gathering of reform supporters, including parents who blame social media for a child’s suicide.
Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube and Twitch face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($32.9 million) from Wednesday if they fail to take reasonable steps to remove the accounts of Australian children younger than 16.
The ban will be enforced by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. She said the platforms already had the technology and personal data about their users to enforce the age restriction with precision.
She would send the 10 targeted platforms on Thursday notices demanding information on how the age restriction was being implemented and how many accounts had been closed.
“We will provide information to the public before Christmas on how these age restrictions are being implemented and whether preliminarily we see them working,” Inman Grant said.
“The responses to these notices will form the baseline against which we will measure compliance,” she added.
Communications Minister Anika Wells said the age-restricted platforms “may not agree with the law and that’s their right — we don’t expect 100% universal support," but that all had undertaken to comply with the Australian law. She said more than 200,000 TikTok accounts in Australia had already been deactivated by Wednesday.
Wells also warned young children who had so far evaded detection that they would eventually be caught. A child who used a virtual private network to appear to be in Norway would be caught out if they were routinely posting images of Australian beaches, Wells said.
“Just because they might have avoided it (detection) today doesn’t mean they will be able to avoid it in a week’s time or a month’s time because social media platforms have to go back and routinely check under-16 accounts,” Wells said.
“These social media platforms have so much data on us because we choose to give it to them because we like social media and because you’ve had your older brother scan their face for you today, which has bought you a bit of time, doesn’t mean that these accounts aren’t going to see you talking to other 14-year-olds tonight about the under-16 soccer carnival on weekend, about your upcoming school holidays and what your Year 10 teacher is next year,” she added.
Albanese said the implementation would be difficult and “won’t be perfect.”
“This is about, importantly, pushing back against big tech, saying that social media companies have a social responsibility,” he said.
Wayne Holdsworth, who became an age restriction advocate because his son Mac took his own life after falling victim to an online sextortion scam, described the new law as a start. Children must now be educated about online dangers before they turn 16.
“Our kids that we’ve lost haven’t died in vain because today they’ll be looking down very proud of the work that we’ve all done,” Holdsworth told the Sydney gathering.
Flossie Brodribb, a 12-year-old advocate for a social media ban for young children, told the gathering she hoped other countries would follow Australia’s lead.
“This ban is bold and brave and I believe it will help kids like me to grow up healthier, safer, kinder and more connected to the real world,” Flossie said.
Simone Clements said the social media ban would come at a financial cost to her 15-year-old twins Carlee and Hayden Clements. Carlee is an actor, model, dancer, singer and influencer. Her brother is an actor and model.
“I know that our situation is unique to our family because the kids are in the entertainment industry and social media goes hand-in-hand with the entertainment industry. We have used social media in the most positive way. And it’s a platform for them to basically show their portfolio, and … this is an income stream for the children,” the mother told ABC.
Clements said the biggest impact on her children would be the loss of their young followers online.
Hugo Winwood-Smith, right, Hardy Macpherson and Edan Abou, left, all 11-years-old, use their phones while sitting outside a school in Sydney, Monday, Dec. 8, 2025. (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)
