May a lower court deprive a death-sentenced prisoner his liberty interest to access a state-created procedure designed to correct injustice by refusing to apply controlling federal precedent?

Next Term, this Court will resolve a significant dispute among the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal : “Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim .” Hamm v. Smith , No. 24 872, 2025 WL 1603602, at *1 ( June 6, 2025) (order granting certiorari). Byron Black’s IQ scores on gold -standard, individually administered objective measures (57, 67, 69, 73, and 76) all fall within the range of scores that meet the criteria for intellectual disability. Nevertheless, contrary to prevailing clinical standards, lower courts have cherry -picked groupadministered tests scores found in his scant two pages of school records to deny him relief. The debate over the proper weight to be accorded to the se various test scores gave rise to the decision in Black v. Carpenter , 866 F.3d 734 (6th Cir. 2017). Th is 2017 decision in Mr. Black’s case is in direct tension with the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Ham m. The Petitioner in Hamm relied on M r. Black’s case to demonstrate the cert -worthiness of his question. Meanwhile, Mr. Black obtained new evidence proving that prior decisions reject ing his Atkins claim are legally an d factually erroneous —including the fact that the state’s key expert now admits that Mr. Black meets current medical standards for the diagnosis of intellectual disability . Tennessee law provides a n avenue to correct such errors via a motion to recall the mandate. Mr. Black attempted to avail himself of this state -created right to establish his ineligibility for the death penalty . The Tennessee Supreme Court refused to permit him access to this process by relying on decision s which are premised on legal analysis that conflicts with this Court’s decisions in Hall v. Florida ; 572 U.S. 701 (2014), Brumfield v. Cain , 576 U.S. 305 (2015) , and Moore v. Texas, 586 U.S. 133 ( 2019). The Question Presented is: May a lower court deprive a death -sentenced prisoner his liberty interest to access a state -created procedure designed to correct injustice by refusing to apply controlling federal precedent?