The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.651004

When the U.S. Supreme Court held that persons with mental retardation (now called intellectual disability) could not be sentenced to death, it left the question of how to define the condition to the states. That issue was raised in Hall v. Florida, which challenged one state’s “bright-line rule” barring consideration of defendants with IQs over 70. In an endorsement of the professional consensus, the justices ruled that a more flexible approach that takes into account both intellectual and adaptive functioning is required. The Court’s posture may bode well for its acceptance of mental health expertise in future cases.