We will hear argument first this morning in case 24-872, Hamm v. Smith.

Mr. Roving.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

nothing in the Eighth Amendment bars the sentence Joseph Smith received

for murdering Dirk Van Damneum nearly 30 years ago.

Atkins created an exception for offenders known to be intellectually disabled, but Smith is not.

He didn't come close to proving an IQ of 70 or below with scores of 75, 74, 74, 72, 78, and 74.

But the lower courts changed the rules.

First, Ms. Reading Hall, they took the lowest score to represent a possibility that Smith's IQ is 69. Then, to the extent they considered other

scores, they took each only in isolation and moved the line to 75. These maneuvers expanded Atkins, and this Court should reverse that expansion.

First, because it was not authorized by the Eighth Amendment.

Second, because it would eliminate state discretion.

And third, because it ignores that the combined effect of multiple IQ scores reduces error

and yields a more accurate estimate.

The answer to whether courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores is yes.

The answer to how they handle multiple scores is not found in the Eighth Amendment and thus left to state discretion.

Still, this Court can offer some meaningful ground rules for how to handle multiple scores.

First, states are allowed to make the first prong turn on the very best evidence of intellectual functioning, IQ.

Second, states are allowed to define the requisite intellectual functioning as an IQ of

70 or below. Third, states are allowed to require the claimant to prove his IQ by a preponderance

of the evidence. The court can then supply a durable rule of decision by which a state can adopt a reasonably reliable method for

handling multiple IQ scores that when it suggests the offender's IQ is greater than 70,

...