Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on Dec. 10 in a case that could impact how prisoners attempt to prove the type of intellectual disability that would allow them to avoid a death sentence.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Oct. 20, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

In 2002, the court held in Atkins v. Virginia that sentencing intellectually disabled convicts to death violated the Eighth Amendment’s bar on “cruel and unusual punishment.” How prisoners go about proving that disability can vary, but doing so may involve showing that their IQ falls below a particular threshold.

The case currently before the court—Hamm v. Smith—focuses on how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit weighed multiple IQ scores in a murder case.

Joseph Clifton Smith was sentenced to death after a jury found him guilty of brutally murdering a man. Under Alabama law, Smith could demonstrate low intellectual functioning with an IQ of 70 or below and substantial deficits in adaptive behavior.

According to court filings, Smith received five IQ scores: 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74. When the case reached the 11th Circuit in 2023, the appeals court upheld a lower court decision vacating his death sentence.

The more controversial part of its decision was how it weighed Smith’s IQ scores. Although each of the scores was above the 70-point threshold, the court said it wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Smith was intellectually disabled. Given the margin of error for IQ tests, the court said Smith’s score could actually be as low as 69.

It pointed to another Supreme Court decision—Hall v. Florida—which said that courts must consider the standard error of measurement when an IQ score is close to, but above, 70. It has also said that courts should move beyond IQ and consider “adaptive deficits,” or things like changing behavior with different circumstances, when IQ scores are close to but above 70.

Considering those deficits, the appeals court said Smith shouldn’t receive the death penalty.

Alabama told the Supreme Court that this was the wrong approach and that Smith had a burden of proving disability by a preponderance of the evidence. Instead of focusing on the error range for a lower IQ score, courts should instead weigh the cumulative effect of multiple scores, Alabama said.

Katherine Robertson, an attorney with the Alabama attorney general’s office, told The Epoch Times that courts had strayed from the actual meaning of the Eighth Amendment.

“I think what we’re looking for is just a return to what the Eighth Amendment actually requires, and a move away, ultimately, from all this judge-made precedent,” she said. She add that “our position in our office philosophically has always been: if you’re competent enough to stand trial, then … how do you get special treatment when it comes to the penalty phase?”

While she wasn’t asking the Supreme Court to overrule its precedent in Atkins, she said it would have to revisit it.

“I think they’re going to have to revisit it,” she said, suggesting that it could foster a return to the true meaning of the Eighth Amendment.

In the Atkins majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said that society viewed mentally challenged individuals as less culpable than the average criminal. Among other things, he said that those individuals may be less able to give meaningful assistance to attorneys defending them.

“Mentally retarded defendants in the aggregate face a special risk of wrongful execution,” he said.

It’s unclear how the Supreme Court will rule but Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision in 2002.

The Trump administration has also intervened in support of Alabama. It argued that the decision in Atkins broke from the Eighth Amendment’s original meaning but also afforded states flexibility in determining intellectual disability.

Smith’s attorneys, meanwhile, defended the appeals court decision and said courts should take a “holistic approach” to evaluating intellectual disability. Regardless of whether IQ scores are conclusive, they said, defendants should be able to present additional evidence surrounding their intellectual functioning.

Elon Musk joined Katie Miller’s podcast for a wide-ranging interview, opening with a question about his time at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and whether the effort was worth it.

Musk said DOGE’s push to cut waste, fraud, and abuse from the federal government was “somewhat successful,” but cautioned he wouldn’t take on that role again given the backlash from what he described as the DC swamp.

Miller asked Musk:

“Would you do DOGE again knowing what you know now?”

Musk responded:

“I mean, the thing is, I think in terms of instead of doing DOGE, I would have basically built you know, worked on my companies essentially. So and not and the cars would they wouldn’t have been burning the cars…”

Miller noted:

“You gave up a lot to DOGE.”

Musk said:

“Yes.”

He continued:

“They really want the money to keep flowing. Um, so if you stop it from flowing, there’s like a very strong reaction to to stopping the money flowing.”

The backlash Musk faced originated from left-wing NGOs and activist groups that targeted Tesla showrooms, progressive politicians openly rooting for the stock to crash, and a sustained pressure campaign by the broader Democratic Party machine, which, he argues, sought to damage the Tesla brand. Let’s not forget that militant leftists firebombed Tesla vehicles at showrooms.

It really depends on how one measures success. Musk told Miller the cost-cutting effort was “somewhat successful,” but noted that, given the response from Deep State-aligned activist groups that targeted Tesla, he wouldn’t do it again. 

“We were a little bit successful. We were somewhat successful. We stopped a lot of funding that really just made no sense, that was entirely wasteful,” he said. Miller if he would go back to lead the organization again, he said: “No, I don’t think so.”

Absolutely surreal to interview one of the greatest minds of our time, a friend, and boss.

Thank you, @elonmusk 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸pic.twitter.com/vbYlZTTaBf

— Katie Miller (@KatieMiller) December 9, 2025

As of early December, DOGE claims on its website to have slashed $214 billion in estimated savings. However, this figure is far from the $2 trillion in savings Musk pitched during the presidential election. 

Perhaps not measured in total dollar amount, some of the success came from dismantling corrupt USAID funding pipelines into NGOs and rooting out other fraud, waste, and abuse that funneled into the Democratic Party’s machine; then maybe the true nature of DOGE’s successes emerges. The lashing out by left-wing activist groups and progressive politicians against Tesla is exactly the response one would expect if you stopped their years of taxpayer looting sprees.

Let’s revisit what we said very early in DOGE’s noble efforts, noting that while Musk’s foray into the DC swap to drain it to the degree pitched would not be attainable. 

Here’s the bigger play at hand, and why there is only token pushback to DOGE.

You cut enough spending – even if it’s all grift and fraud – you eventually get a recession, guaranteed. That’s all Congress is waiting for cause then they use the “emergency” to vote through a far…

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 8, 2025

What the DOGE effort revealed was that Democrats and their unhinged left-wing groups would pursue violence to stop Musk. This is the same political machine attacking Trump and ‘America First’… 

Republicans looking for hints on how midterms might go need look no further than Miami, Florida – where Democrat Eileen Higgins won the mayor’s race, becoming the first woman to lead the city – and the first Democrat to take the helm in nearly 30 years. 

Miami mayor-elect Eileen Higgins celebrates at a watch party after winning the Miami mayoral runoff election, Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2025, in Miami. | Lynne Sladky/AP

The 61-year-old campaigned on opposition to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration, saying many in Miami have voiced concerns over family members being detained. 

Higgins beat Trump-backed former city manager Emilio Gonzales by roughly 19%. That said, there are a few caveats:

– The race was supposed to be nonpartisan, meaning voters didn’t see party labels when they cast their ballot.

– It’s an off-year election, and the first Miami mayoral runoff since 2001.

– It’s the first time the mayor’s race has ever been decided in December, while people are preparing for the holidays. 

Yet, since Republicans have held the seat for so long, and because Higgins won by nearly 20 points, Democrats get to add Miami to their list of wins in 2025. 

“We are facing rhetoric from elected officials that is so dehumanizing and cruel, especially against immigrant populations,” Higgins told AP following her victory speech. “The residents of Miami were ready to be done with that.”

RESULT: D+19 pic.twitter.com/etROjOCyqZ

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 10, 2025

While the Miami race might be an outlier when it comes to predicting midterms, the victory gives Democrats some momentum heading into midterm elections, where the GOP is looking to keep Florida red – including a Hispanic-majority district in Miami-Dade county that has been shifting increasingly conservative in recent years. 

“Tonight’s result is yet another warning sign to Republicans that voters are fed up with their out-of-touch agenda that is raising costs,” said DNC chair Ken Martin following Higgins’ win. 

Conservative activist Scott Pressler sounded the alarm, writing on X: “Republicans are completely squandering all of the work we did to win the 2024 elections.”

Yep. Leave it to the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

— Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) December 10, 2025

As Politico notes, Higgins’ campaign is likely to be carefully studied by other Democratic hopefuls in Florida – after she ran “not on social justice or culture war issues, but on improving affordability and making government work better. She agreed with Republicans that the city’s finances needed a careful look.” 

Republicans will certainly face questions after Tuesday’s result – including whether they’re losing ground with Latinos, and whether it will continue to be effective to call Democrats “socialists” at every turn given that it didn’t work whatsoever with Higgins. 

“Donald Trump got involved in this election. Ron DeSantis got involved in this election. Every statewide elected Republican got involved in this election,” said Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried. “They knew this was an important race, and them blowing it off today is why we’re going to be able to win some really big races next year — because they think they just have Florida in the bag.”