Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of individuals with severe neuropsychological disorders, lifelong cognitive deficits, and low mental age, even where a state's constitution precludes the state from offering any protection against cruel and unusual punishment that is not explicitly ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Trop v. Dulles, this Court held that the Eighth Amendment “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency to mark the progress of a maturing society.” 356 U.S. 86, 100 (1958). Additionally, this Court has made clear that Eighth Amendment determinations regarding which individuals should be exempt from execution must be informed by the views of the scientific community. See, e.g., Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 710, 723 (2014); Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. 1, 20-21 (2017). Petitioner Darryl Bryan Barwick—an individual with a_ severe neuropsychological disorder, lifelong cognitive deficits and brain damage, and low mental age—is scheduled to be executed by the State of Florida on May 3, 2023, for a crime committed when he was only 19 years of age. The Florida Supreme Court, bound by a unique state constitutional provision precluding the state from offering any protection against cruel and unusual punishment that is not explicitly ordered by this Court, ruled that it “simply does not have the authority” to exempt Mr. Barwick from execution based on his myriad vulnerabilities. Barwick v. State, __ So. 3d __, 2023 WL 3151079 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2023),