Moore v. Texas - II (2019)

Brief Filed: 11/18
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Year of Decision: 2019

Full-text amicus briefopens in new window (PDF, 212KB)

At issue in this case is whether a state can only use a non-clinical judicially developed means of diagnosing intellectual disability or must be guided by consensus professional standards for diagnosis.

Death Penalty

This is a follow-on brief to the amicus brief filed by APA in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Moore v. Texas (II), which was remanded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) for further proceedings. The case involves whether a state can only use a non-clinical judicially developed means of diagnosing intellectual disability or must be guided by consensus professional standards for diagnosis. On June 6, 2018, the CCA ruled that Bobby Moore is not intellectually disabled under the most recent clinical definition of the disability and may be executed, despite a finding by a trial court judge, a concession from the Harris County District Attorney's office, and despite briefs from numerous professional associations and disability advocates all favoring use of scientifically developed diagnostic criteria for intellectual disability.

APA’s brief explains the professional consensus around current clinical standards for diagnosis of intellectual disability, including the need and means to assess concurrent deficits in intellectual and adaptive functioning and discusses the lack of scientific evidence to support the outdated and non-clinical approach that Texas prosecutors were using.

On February 19, 2019 the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision in concluding that the standard used by the Texas court did not comply with the Court’s prior decision in Moore’s case. In reaching its decision, the Court included multiple citations to APA’s briefs in this case – see APA press release.