whether-the-decision-in-hail-v-florida-announced-a-new-rule-of-constitutional-law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), this Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments preclude the execution of defendants with intellectual disability. This case presents the question whether the decision in Hail v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (determining that defendants with intellectual disability include those whose IQ scores are within the standard error of measurement), announced a new rule of constitutional law within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (denying retroactive application to most new rules of constitutional law), as the court below and the Eleventh Circuit have held, or was instead simply an application of the rule of Atkins to particular facts, as Petitioner contends and all other Circuit decisions conclude. 2. This case also presents the question whether it is consistent with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for a State to impose on a capital defendant the burden of proving intellectual disability by clear and convincing evidence, as only Florida does.1 1 As described in the pending certiorari petition in Young v. Georgia (No. 21-782), that State imposes on a capital defendant the burden of proving intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt. ii LIST OF DIRECTLY