Whether courts must deem the Atkins prong satisfied when an offender's lowest IQ score, decreased by one standard error of measurement, is 70 or below

QUESTIONS PRESENTED According to Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2003), the Eighth Amendment exempts intellectually disabled offenders from capital punishment. The Court adopted from “the medical community” a threepronged definition of intellectual disability: “[1] significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, [2] deficits in adaptive functioning ..., and [3] onset of these deficits during the developmental period.” Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 710 (2014). When assessing intellectual functioning, courts must account for an IQ test’s “standard error of measurement” (SEM) and “move on” to the second prong when “the lower end of [the offender’s] score range falls at or below 70.” Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. 1, 13-14 (2017). Smith scored 78, 75, 74, 74, and 72 on five IQ tests. He did not prove his IQ was 70 or below, so his Atkins claim seemed to fail at step one. But the Eleventh Circuit “moved on” anyway because Smith had a score of 72 with an error range of + 3. Thus, it sufficed that Smith’s IQ “could be as low as 69” based on his lowest score alone and on the possibility that the test erred maximally in his favor. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Hall and Moore mandate that courts deem the prong satisfied when an offender’s lowest IQ score, decreased by one standard error of measurement, is 70 or below. 2. Whether the Court should overrule Hall and Moore or at least clarify that they permit courts to consider multiple IQ scores and the probability that an offender’s IQ does not fall at the bottom of the lowest IQ score’s error range. ii PARTIES AND