arguments

Alabama cannot execute convicted murderer with low IQ after Supreme Court ruling #Catholic The Supreme Court on May 21 rejected an attempt by the state of Alabama to execute a convicted murderer whose low IQ may render him intellectually disabled and thus protected from capital punishment by the U.S. Constitution. The court in an unsigned order dismissed an appeal from Alabama after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Joseph Clifton Smith, with the appeals court holding that Smithʼs low-70s IQ put him close enough to the threshold of an intellectually disability to render his death sentence unconstitutional. The court heard oral arguments in the case in December 2025. The case had followed a twisting path through the federal court system; the 11th Circuit first ruled in Smithʼs favor in 2023, after which the Supreme Court in 2024 vacated that decision and ordered the appeals court to consider it again. A second review by the lower court, with another favorable ruling for Smith, again brought the case before the Supreme Court last year; the high courtʼs May 21 ruling brought the case to an end.The latest ruling represents a potential precedent in how the Supreme Court considers certain cases of capital punishment. The court ruled in the 2002 case Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with intellectual disabilities violated the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment." The justices did not define “intellectual disability” in that case, though it cited expert opinion that “an IQ between 70 and 75 or lower” is “typically considered the cutoff” in some definitions. Theresa Farnan, philosopher on the Ethics and Public Policy Committee of the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, told EWTN News in April that Smithʼs death sentence was “clearly a borderline case.” Smith was convicted in the brutal 1997 slaying of Durk Van Dam. “It’s obvious to me he could not grasp the gravity of his crimes,“ Farnan said of Smith. ”In cases like these, the burden on us as a society is even more pronounced to be radically pro-life.”The Catholic Church in recent decades has come out increasingly against the death penalty, with multiple popes arguing that modern penal systems have rendered capital punishment inadmissible in many if not most cases.Pope Leo XIV in particular has spoken out several times against the death penalty in just the first year of his pontificate, arguing that “human life is to be respected” and that support for capital punishment is incompatible with a pro-life philosophy.
Read More

Alabama cannot execute convicted murderer with low IQ after Supreme Court ruling #Catholic The Supreme Court on May 21 rejected an attempt by the state of Alabama to execute a convicted murderer whose low IQ may render him intellectually disabled and thus protected from capital punishment by the U.S. Constitution. The court in an unsigned order dismissed an appeal from Alabama after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Joseph Clifton Smith, with the appeals court holding that Smithʼs low-70s IQ put him close enough to the threshold of an intellectually disability to render his death sentence unconstitutional. The court heard oral arguments in the case in December 2025. The case had followed a twisting path through the federal court system; the 11th Circuit first ruled in Smithʼs favor in 2023, after which the Supreme Court in 2024 vacated that decision and ordered the appeals court to consider it again. A second review by the lower court, with another favorable ruling for Smith, again brought the case before the Supreme Court last year; the high courtʼs May 21 ruling brought the case to an end.The latest ruling represents a potential precedent in how the Supreme Court considers certain cases of capital punishment. The court ruled in the 2002 case Atkins v. Virginia that executing people with intellectual disabilities violated the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment." The justices did not define “intellectual disability” in that case, though it cited expert opinion that “an IQ between 70 and 75 or lower” is “typically considered the cutoff” in some definitions. Theresa Farnan, philosopher on the Ethics and Public Policy Committee of the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, told EWTN News in April that Smithʼs death sentence was “clearly a borderline case.” Smith was convicted in the brutal 1997 slaying of Durk Van Dam. “It’s obvious to me he could not grasp the gravity of his crimes,“ Farnan said of Smith. ”In cases like these, the burden on us as a society is even more pronounced to be radically pro-life.”The Catholic Church in recent decades has come out increasingly against the death penalty, with multiple popes arguing that modern penal systems have rendered capital punishment inadmissible in many if not most cases.Pope Leo XIV in particular has spoken out several times against the death penalty in just the first year of his pontificate, arguing that “human life is to be respected” and that support for capital punishment is incompatible with a pro-life philosophy.

unitedyam

The court has previously held that people with intellectual disabilities may not be executed under the U.S. Constitution.

Read More
Catholics weigh in as Supreme Court faces deadline on telemedicine abortion ruling #Catholic The U.S. Supreme Court’s stay on the 5th Circuit’s ruling restricting access to telemedicine abortions is set to expire May 11, a deadline that could bring an extension, allow the restrictions to take effect, or prompt the justices to take up the case in full.Michael New, assistant professor of social research at The Catholic University of America’s Busch School of Business, told “EWTN News Nightly” on May 8: “The Supreme Court may extend the stay if they need more time to deliberate; they may simply uphold the 5th Circuit Courtʼs decision that bans tele-abortion, and the ban will go into effect; or they may want to do a full hearing [and] conduct oral arguments.”The Supreme Court on May 4 temporarily blocked a lower court order requiring in‑person dispensing of mifepristone after two manufacturers asked the justices to intervene, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to issue an administrative stay that restores mail‑order access until May 11 at 5 p.m. ET while the court weighs the request.Although Alito instructed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the state of Louisiana to respond by 5 p.m. ET on May 7, the Justice Department failed to do so.New described the development as “odd,” saying the failure by the Justice Department, which represents the FDA, to meet the filing deadline could be that “they don’t want to defend the FDA’s position any longer” or that it may signal a policy change.“Sometimes when people think theyʼre going to lose a case, they change public policy because theyʼd rather change policy than, you know, lose a court case,” New said. “Itʼs really hard to say at this point.”Ultimately, New said the Supreme Court should “absolutely” reinstate in-person requirements to obtain abortion pills, saying: “Thereʼs some real serious public health issues at play here.”Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino gave context for the latest developments in a May 7 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” noting that the FDAʼs ongoing approval of nationwide mail-order abortion effectively circumvents Louisiana law protecting unborn human life. “The court should decide hopefully by the 11th, because thatʼs when the stay expires,” she said. “If they donʼt make any decision, then the 5th Circuit ruling goes back into effect and the FDA will have to disallow mailing of these pills, at least during the pendency of litigation,” said Severino, who is also a former Supreme Court clerk.U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the FDA to carry out a review of the abortion drug in May 2025, which is still ongoing.Ultimately, Severino said, the Supreme Court will not be ruling on “what the FDA needs to do at the end of the day” but on whether abortion drugs will be allowed to be mailed into Louisiana or not.“Eventually, you know, then itʼs going to go back and the district court and the 5th Circuit are going to have to reconsider it,” she said. “It could well return to the Supreme Court ultimately, but thatʼs going to be a ways down the litigation.”The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has spoken out against the dangers of mail-order abortion drugs for women and urged the FDA to restore in-person visits to screen for life-threatening conditions such as ectopic pregnancies as well as abuse and human trafficking.
Read More

Catholics weigh in as Supreme Court faces deadline on telemedicine abortion ruling #Catholic The U.S. Supreme Court’s stay on the 5th Circuit’s ruling restricting access to telemedicine abortions is set to expire May 11, a deadline that could bring an extension, allow the restrictions to take effect, or prompt the justices to take up the case in full.Michael New, assistant professor of social research at The Catholic University of America’s Busch School of Business, told “EWTN News Nightly” on May 8: “The Supreme Court may extend the stay if they need more time to deliberate; they may simply uphold the 5th Circuit Courtʼs decision that bans tele-abortion, and the ban will go into effect; or they may want to do a full hearing [and] conduct oral arguments.”The Supreme Court on May 4 temporarily blocked a lower court order requiring in‑person dispensing of mifepristone after two manufacturers asked the justices to intervene, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to issue an administrative stay that restores mail‑order access until May 11 at 5 p.m. ET while the court weighs the request.Although Alito instructed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the state of Louisiana to respond by 5 p.m. ET on May 7, the Justice Department failed to do so.New described the development as “odd,” saying the failure by the Justice Department, which represents the FDA, to meet the filing deadline could be that “they don’t want to defend the FDA’s position any longer” or that it may signal a policy change.“Sometimes when people think theyʼre going to lose a case, they change public policy because theyʼd rather change policy than, you know, lose a court case,” New said. “Itʼs really hard to say at this point.”Ultimately, New said the Supreme Court should “absolutely” reinstate in-person requirements to obtain abortion pills, saying: “Thereʼs some real serious public health issues at play here.”Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino gave context for the latest developments in a May 7 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” noting that the FDAʼs ongoing approval of nationwide mail-order abortion effectively circumvents Louisiana law protecting unborn human life. “The court should decide hopefully by the 11th, because thatʼs when the stay expires,” she said. “If they donʼt make any decision, then the 5th Circuit ruling goes back into effect and the FDA will have to disallow mailing of these pills, at least during the pendency of litigation,” said Severino, who is also a former Supreme Court clerk.U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the FDA to carry out a review of the abortion drug in May 2025, which is still ongoing.Ultimately, Severino said, the Supreme Court will not be ruling on “what the FDA needs to do at the end of the day” but on whether abortion drugs will be allowed to be mailed into Louisiana or not.“Eventually, you know, then itʼs going to go back and the district court and the 5th Circuit are going to have to reconsider it,” she said. “It could well return to the Supreme Court ultimately, but thatʼs going to be a ways down the litigation.”The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has spoken out against the dangers of mail-order abortion drugs for women and urged the FDA to restore in-person visits to screen for life-threatening conditions such as ectopic pregnancies as well as abuse and human trafficking.

unitedyam

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered a review of the abortion drug mifipristone in May 2025, which is ongoing.

Read More