Alabama asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a federal ruling that blocked the execution of Joseph Clifton Smith, who was sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of Durk Van Dam.

According to a news release, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and members of his staff argued that the lower court wrongly expanded protections reserved for offenders who are truly intellectually disabled.

The case centers on Smith’s conviction for killing Van Dam just two days after Smith was released from a work release program while serving sentences for burglary and receiving stolen property. Prosecutors said Smith and an accomplice offered Van Dam a ride, drove him to a remote wooded area and beat him with a hammer and saw. Van Dam suffered thirty-five blunt force injuries, fractured ribs, brain swelling, a collapsed lung and deep saw marks. Smith confessed after initially trying to mislead investigators. He and his accomplice stole $140, pawned the victim’s tools, and left Van Dam to die.

Per the release, Smith later sought to block his execution by claiming he is intellectually disabled. The Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia bars the death penalty for offenders who meet a three-part definition: an IQ of 70 or below, substantial deficits in adaptive functioning and onset of the condition during childhood. Offenders must prove the disability.

State and federal courts reviewed Smith’s claim three times. Across five IQ tests, his scores ranged from 72 to 78, above the legal threshold. The Eleventh Circuit nevertheless granted relief by focusing on a single score it described as “close to 70” and treating it as if it met the standard. Alabama asked the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling.

During oral arguments, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Robert Overing said the defense relied on assumptions that ignored statistical reality and the combined weight of the test results. He argued that no reasonable review of the evidence could find that Smith met the burden of proving intellectual disability.

“Today, we defended Alabama’s lawful sentence and the basic principle that facts — not ideology — must continue to guide constitutional law. Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled. Five independent IQ tests placed him well above the legal threshold, and no amount of judicial creativity can change that,” Marshall said in the release.

He added that the Eleventh Circuit’s approach would force states to disregard clear evidence and embrace hypotheticals designed to delay accountability nearly 27 years after the crime.

Marshall also praised Overing’s performance before the Court.

“I am extraordinarily proud of Principal Deputy Solicitor General Bob Overing for the clarity and conviction he brought to the Court today. His arguments made unmistakably clear that Alabama’s capital punishment system is both lawful and essential to the enforcement of justice. Because of his work, the Court now has before it a rigorous defense of the State’s authority to enforce capital sentences without being undermined by shifting and unscientific standards — standards that have nothing to do with the Constitution. The stakes extend far beyond this case, and his exceptional arguments ensure that Alabama and our sister States can continue to uphold criminal justice and the rule of law for all Americans.”

The Attorney General’s office noted that Alabama’s opening brief was filed in August and its reply brief in October. The case documents are available at www.alabamaag.gov.