The elusive promise of
justice for all for people with
developmental disabilities
Civil rights abuses experienced by people with disabilities are often egregious, ranging from pervasive discrimination to neglect and instances of horrific physical, sexual, and emotional abuse that may go unprosecuted and unpunished.
Recognizing that people with disabilities are often denied access to the justice system, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) and The Arc US issued a joint position statement that reads, in part:
People with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities who are victims, suspects, or witnesses, like other residents of the United States, have the right to justice and fair treatment in all areas of the criminal justice system, including reasonable accommodations as necessary.1
The justice system sometimes reflects outdated stereotypes that impact access to justice for people with developmental disabilities. For example, people working in the law enforcement and justice systems can assume that people with developmental disabilities are not competent and, therefore, unable to participate in the justice system in a meaningful way. Some might assume that all people with developmental disabilities have neither the physical or intellectual capacity to withstand the rigors of a trial.
Victims with disabilities are often treated as children who are incapable of assisting in their case and must be protected from reality. While it is true that attorneys and other representatives of the legal system may encounter unique challenges when working with individuals with developmental disabilities, these challenges can be addressed without jeopardizing an individual’s rights.
- Source: AAIDD Fact Sheet, Criminal Justice, retrieved from http://www.thearc.org/document.doc?id=3636.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
The Supreme Court ruled that the execution of an intellectually disabled criminal defendant is an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court based its ruling on the national consensus against executing intellectually disabled offenders. This consensus was based on the recognition that the two typical justifications for imposition of the death penalty – retribution fitting the severity of the crime and deterrence – are weakened because of the diminished culpability of defendants with intellectual disabilities. In addition, the reduced capacity of defendants with intellectual disabilities enhances the risk that the death penalty will be imposed despite factors which may call for a less severe penalty. Atkins left to the states “the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce” this constitutional restriction (536 U.S. at 317).
In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has provided additional guidance. In Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), the Court invalidated a Florida statute requiring defendants to show an IQ score of 70 or below before being permitted to present any additional evidence of intellectual disability. The Court held that a state must consider the standard error of measurement in IQ testing, and permit defendants with IQ’s within that standard error of measurement to present additional evidence of intellectual disability.
In Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. 1 (2014), the Court invalidated Texas’s judicially-created set of factors for determining intellectual disability, warning: “States have some flexibility, but not “unfettered discretion,” in enforcing Atkins’ holding,.. and the medical community’s current standards, reflecting improved understanding over time, constrain states’ leeway in this area.”
On December 10, 2025, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Hamm v. Smith, considering whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim. 145 S. Ct. 2776 (cert. granted 2025). However, on May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari. 608 U.S. ___ (2026).
Videos
Joseph Shapiro shares his thoughts about the 35th anniversary of the ADA
NPR investigative correspondent Joseph Shapiro shares his thoughts about the 35th anniversary of the ADA and the impact it has made. Joseph Shapiro is the author of No Pity.
