Supreme Court will hear Alabama appeal in bid to execute man found to be intellectually disabled
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will consider making it harder for convicted murderers to show their lives should be spared because they are intellectually disabled, according an order released early on Friday after an apparent technological glitch.
The justices' action comes in an appeal from Alabama, which is seeking to execute Joseph Clifton Smith. He was sentenced to death for killing a man in 1997. Lower federal courts found Smith is intellectually disabled and thus can't be executed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Iran acknowledges death toll from Israel's strike on notorious Evin prison
Iran acknowledged on Sunday that an Israeli strike on Tehran's notorious Evin prison last week killed dozens of people. Iran's judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir posted on the office's official Mizan news agency website that the strike killed at least 71 people, including staff, soldiers, prisoners and members of visiting families. Officials did not provide a breakdown of casualty figures. The Washington-based Human Rights Activists in Iran said at least 35 of those killed were staff members and two were inmates. Others killed included a person walking in the prison vicinity and a woman who went to meet a judge about her imprisoned husband's case, the organization said. Jahangir said some of the injured were treated on site, while others were taken to hospitals. Iran has not said how many were injured. Iran had also confirmed on Saturday that top prosecutor Ali Ghanaatkar had been killed in the attack. Ghanaatkar's prosecution of dissidents, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi, had led to widespread criticism by human rights groups. Israel carried out the strike on June 23 as its Defense Ministry said it was attacking "regime targets and government repression bodies in the heart of Tehran." The facility was known to hold many of Iran's political prisoners and dissidents. The prison attack came near the end of 12 days of Israeli strikes, which Israel claimed killed around 30 Iranian commanders and 11 nuclear scientists, while hitting eight nuclear-related facilities and more than 720 military infrastructure sites. The status of Iran's nuclear program remains unclear, even after President Donald Trump said American strikes on June 22 "obliterated" Iran's nuclear capabilities. Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview Sunday that Iran's capacities remain, but it is impossible to assess the full damage to the nuclear program unless inspectors are allowed in, which Iranian officials have not authorized. "It is clear that there has been severe damage, but it's not total damage, first of all. And secondly, Iran has the capacities there, industrial and technological capacities. So if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again," Grossi said. Grossi said Iran could have centrifuges spinning enriched uranium "in a matter of months." "Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there," he said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Sotomayor says public education is doomed without mandatory gay and trans story hour
The end is nigh. That seems to be the message this week from the three liberal justices at the Supreme Court when faced with the nightmarish prospect of parents being able to remove their young children from mandatory classes on gay, lesbian and transgender material. The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was a roaring victory for parents in public schools. The Montgomery County, Md. school system fought to require the reading of 13 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' texts in the English and Language Arts curriculum for kids from pre-K through 12th grade. That covers children just 5-11 years old. The children are required to read or listen to stories like 'Prince & Knight' about two male knights who marry each other, and 'Love Violet' about two young girls falling in love. Another, 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' discusses a biological girl who begins a transition to being a boy. Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, 'That comment is hurtful!' Even if a student merely asks, 'What's transgender?,' teachers are expected to say, 'When we're born, people make a guess about our gender and label us 'boy' or 'girl' based on our body parts. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.' Teachers were specifically told to '[d]isrupt' thinking or values opposing transgender views. Many families sought to opt out of these lessons. The school allows for such opt-outs for a variety of reasons, but the Board ruled out withdrawals for these lessons. Ironically, it noted that so many families were upset and objecting that it would be burdensome to allow so many kids to withdraw. The Montgomery County school system is one of the most diverse in the nation. And Christian, Muslim, and other families objected to the mandatory program as undermining their religious and moral values. The majority on the Supreme Court ruled that, as with other opt-outs, Montgomery County must allow parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The response from liberal groups was outrage. Liberal sites declared 'another victory for right-wing culture warriors,' even though the public overwhelmingly supported these parents. However, the most overwrought language came not from liberal advocates but liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that there 'will be chaos for this nation's public schools' and both education and children will 'suffer' if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons. She also worried about the 'chilling effect' of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future. It was a particularly curious concern, since parents would like teachers to focus more on core subjects and show greater restraint in pursuing social agendas. The majority pushed back against 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the three liberal justices on dismissing the objections of so many families to these lessons. Nevertheless, even though such material was only recently added and made mandatory, the liberal justices declared that 'the damage to America's public education system will be profound' and 'threatens the very essence of public education.' The truth is that this decision could actually save public education in the U.S. Previously, during oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had shocked many when she dismissed the objections of parents, stating that they could simply remove their children from public schools. It was a callous response to many families who do not have the means to pay for private or parochial schools. Yet, it is a view previously expressed by many Democratic politicians and school officials. State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: 'If parents want to 'have a say' in their child's education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.' Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: 'The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.' These parents still harbor the apparently misguided notion that these remain their children. Today, many are indeed following Jackson's advice and leaving public schools. The opposition of public-sector unions and many Democratic politicians to school vouchers is precisely because families are fleeing the failing public school systems. Once they are no longer captive to the system, they opt for private schools that offer a greater focus on basic educational subjects and less emphasis on social activism. Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve 'equity' and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack of math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace. This decision may well save public schools from themselves by encouraging a return to core educational priorities. It may offer some cover for more moderate school officials to push back against such demands for mandatory readings to young children. What the majority calls 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the dissent could just as well describe the delusional position of public school boards and unions. Schools are facing rising debt and severe declines in enrollment, yet unions in states like Illinois are demanding even more staff increases and larger expenditures. The liberal justices are right about one thing: This is a fight over 'the essence of public education.' However, it is the parents, not the educators (or these justices) who are trying to restore public education to meet the demands for a diverse nation. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
The Latest: July deadline for Trump's tax and spending bill approaches
Monday could be a pivotal day for Senate Republicans, who are racing to meet President Donald Trump's Fourth of July deadline to pass legislation that contains big tax breaks and spending cuts. The House is being called back to session for votes as soon as Wednesday, if the Senate can pass the bill.
