Court dismisses Alabama’s bid
to execute inmate with
borderline intellectual disability
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed Alabama's bid to be allowed to execute a convicted murder who was found by lower courts to be intellectually disabled.
The court's action leaves in place lower court rulings in favor of Joseph Clifton Smith, 55, who has been on death row roughly half his life after his conviction for beating a man to death in 1997.
The Supreme Court prohibited execution of intellectually disabled people in a landmark ruling in 2002. The justices, in cases in 2014 and 2017, held that states should consider other evidence of disability in borderline cases because of the margin of error in IQ tests.
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 justices had taken up the case to consider how courts should handle such borderline cases of intellectual disability. Arguments took place in December.
Rather than issue a decision, though, the high court dismissed the appeal, an unusuaI action that leaves the last lower-court ruling in place.
The three liberal justices along with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett formed the majority to dismiss the case.
The other four conservative justices dissented, faulting the federal appeals court in Atlanta for improperly analyzing the case and complaining that their colleagues should have ordered the appeals court to reexamine Smith's case.
The case is Hamm v. Smith, 24-872.
Justices side with US company in claims
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed Alabama's bid to be allowed to execute a convicted murder who was found by lower courts to be intellectually disabled.
The court's action leaves in place lower court rulings in favor of Joseph Clifton Smith, 55, who has been on death row roughly half his life after his conviction for beating a man to death in 1997.
The Supreme Court prohibited execution of intellectually disabled people in a landmark ruling in 2002. The justices, in cases in 2014 and 2017, held that states should consider other evidence of disability in borderline cases because of the margin of error in IQ tests.
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 justices had taken up the case to consider how courts should handle such borderline cases of intellectual disability. Arguments took place in December.
Rather than issue a decision, though, the high court dismissed the appeal, an unusuaI action that leaves the last lower-court ruling in place.
The three liberal justices along with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett formed the majority to dismiss the case.
The other four conservative justices dissented, faulting the federal appeals court in Atlanta for improperly analyzing the case and complaining that their colleagues should have ordered the appeals court to reexamine Smith's case.
The case is Hamm v. Smith, 24-872.
Justices side with US company in claims
over property seized in Cuban revolution
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of owners of Cuban property that was confiscated by Fidel Castro's government more than 65 years ago.
By an 8-1 vote, the justices revived claims filed by a U.S. company, Havana Docks, that operated docks in the Cuban capital. The suit targets four cruise lines that brought tourists to Cuba during the brief thaw in relations during the Obama administration.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court that the federal appeals court in Atlanta was wrong to dismiss the claims, holding that "the cruise lines used confiscated property to which Havana Docks owns the claim."
The court's ruling is not a final decision in the suit filed by Havana Docks. But it comes amid heightened pressure on Cuba from President Donald Trump's administration, including Wednesday's indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro in the 1996 downing of civilian planes flown by Miami-based exiles.
The Supreme Court case turned on a provision of the federal law known as Helms-Burton that Congress passed in response to the shootdowns. Title III of the law allows Americans to sue almost any company that engages in commercial activity or benefits from property confiscated by Cuba's government.
Before the first Trump administration, every president had suspended the provision because of objections from U.S. allies doing business in Cuba and the effect on future negotiated settlements between the U.S. and Cuba.
In 2016, President Barack Obama used a joint news conference with Castro to announce that cruise lines could resume service to Cuba. Carnival, Norwegian, Royal Caribbean and MSC Cruises began making stops in Havana that allowed cruise travelers to go on excursions to local nightclubs, landmarks, rivers and beaches.
That changed abruptly in 2019, when Trump decided to activate the provision allowing lawsuits and then announced new restrictions on travel. The cruise lines hastily dropped Cuba stops and rerouted ships on the go.
Ruling in the lawsuit filed by Havana Docks, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom in Miami found the cruise lines liable for their use of the Havana terminal the company once controlled.
Licenses by Obama's Treasury Department to carry American passengers to Cuba did not shield the cruise lines from the lawsuit, Bloom ruled.
She awarded Havana Docks, more than $400 million in all. A federal appeals court ruled for the cruise lines, reversing the judgment.
The case now returns to the appeals court. Thomas acknowledged that the cruise lines have additional arguments that have yet to be ruled on.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of owners of Cuban property that was confiscated by Fidel Castro's government more than 65 years ago.
By an 8-1 vote, the justices revived claims filed by a U.S. company, Havana Docks, that operated docks in the Cuban capital. The suit targets four cruise lines that brought tourists to Cuba during the brief thaw in relations during the Obama administration.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court that the federal appeals court in Atlanta was wrong to dismiss the claims, holding that "the cruise lines used confiscated property to which Havana Docks owns the claim."
The court's ruling is not a final decision in the suit filed by Havana Docks. But it comes amid heightened pressure on Cuba from President Donald Trump's administration, including Wednesday's indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro in the 1996 downing of civilian planes flown by Miami-based exiles.
The Supreme Court case turned on a provision of the federal law known as Helms-Burton that Congress passed in response to the shootdowns. Title III of the law allows Americans to sue almost any company that engages in commercial activity or benefits from property confiscated by Cuba's government.
Before the first Trump administration, every president had suspended the provision because of objections from U.S. allies doing business in Cuba and the effect on future negotiated settlements between the U.S. and Cuba.
In 2016, President Barack Obama used a joint news conference with Castro to announce that cruise lines could resume service to Cuba. Carnival, Norwegian, Royal Caribbean and MSC Cruises began making stops in Havana that allowed cruise travelers to go on excursions to local nightclubs, landmarks, rivers and beaches.
That changed abruptly in 2019, when Trump decided to activate the provision allowing lawsuits and then announced new restrictions on travel. The cruise lines hastily dropped Cuba stops and rerouted ships on the go.
Ruling in the lawsuit filed by Havana Docks, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom in Miami found the cruise lines liable for their use of the Havana terminal the company once controlled.
Licenses by Obama's Treasury Department to carry American passengers to Cuba did not shield the cruise lines from the lawsuit, Bloom ruled.
She awarded Havana Docks, more than $400 million in all. A federal appeals court ruled for the cruise lines, reversing the judgment.
The case now returns to the appeals court. Thomas acknowledged that the cruise lines have additional arguments that have yet to be ruled on.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
