Whether a state may refuse to provide a process by which a state inmate may prove that he is not competent to be executed because he meets the common law standard for the protection of 'idiots'

At the time of the Founding, the common law prohibited the execution of “idiots.” Ford v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 399, 417 (1986) . In Ford , this Court made clear that “the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment embraces , at a minimum, those modes or acts of punishment that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time that the Bill of Rights was adopted. ” Ford , 477 U.S. at 405 . Relying on these fundamental principles, Mr. Black in the lower courts sought the opportunity to demonstrate that the Eighth Amendment prohibits his execution. The Tennessee Supreme Court “declined” to recognize this common -law prohibition on his execution or permit Mr. Black to prove that he qualifies for such protection . It held that competency to be executed proceedings are limited to “ Ford -based claims of incompetency grounded in insanity [,]” thus eliminating consideration of any common law claim other than one based upon significant mental illness. Black v. State , No. M20641 -SC-DPE -CD, 2025 Tenn. LEXIS 279, at *24 ( Tenn. July 8, 2025) . Given this, the question presented is : Whether a state m ay refuse to provide a process by which a state inmate may prove that he is not competent to be executed because he meets the common law standard for the protection of “ idiots ”?