Moore v. Texas
The Supreme Court ruled that a Texas court still got it wrong the second time it decided whether Bobby James Moore, a death-row inmate, has intellectual disability, despite claiming to drop the outdated method the Court had already rejected.
The Court reversed outright, finding that Moore has shown intellectual disability and therefore cannot be executed, ending years of back-and-forth over how Texas evaluates intellectual disability claims in capital cases.
How it got here: A Texas habeas court found Moore intellectually disabled; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed twice, once before and once after the Supreme Court vacated and remanded; Moore again sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Bobby James Moore was sentenced to death in Texas. A state habeas court found, after hearing extensive testimony, that Moore had significant intellectual and adaptive deficits dating to childhood, including inability to read, tell time, or understand basic math, and concluded he had intellectual disability, which would make him ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia.
The question before the Court
After the Supreme Court told Texas courts to stop using outdated factors to judge intellectual disability, did the Texas court fix its analysis when it reconsidered Bobby James Moore's case?
The Court's answer
No — the Texas court did not actually fix its analysis. Although it said it was abandoning the outdated Briseno factors and using modern medical standards instead, the Supreme Court found that its reasoning still repeated the same mistakes: overemphasizing Moore's apparent strengths, leaning on skills he developed only in prison, and echoing the very stereotypes the Court had already rejected.
Because those flawed parts of the analysis were essential to the Texas court's conclusion, the Supreme Court didn't send the case back a third time. Instead, it reversed outright, agreeing with Moore and the prosecutor that the trial court's original finding — that Moore has intellectual disability and cannot be executed — should stand.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Bobby James Moore, who faced execution, will not be put to death because the Court itself found he has intellectual disability. The decision also puts Texas courts on notice that they cannot keep applying discredited lay stereotypes about intellectual disability, even while claiming to use modern medical standards, in death penalty cases.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision, not a temporary order. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment is reversed, and the case is sent back only for proceedings consistent with the Court's conclusion that Moore has intellectual disability, meaning he cannot be executed under Atkins v. Virginia. The Texas Attorney General's request to intervene was denied, though treated as a supporting brief.
What this does not decide
The Court did not create a new legal test for intellectual disability; it applied the standard from its earlier Moore v. Texas decision to this specific record. The ruling does not resolve broader confusion, which the dissent and Chief Justice's concurrence both noted, about exactly how courts should apply that earlier standard in future cases.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Roberts
Chief Justice Roberts, who had dissented from the Court's 2017 decision because he found its standard unclear, agreed that the standard remains unclear generally. But he concluded that regardless of that ambiguity, the Texas court plainly misapplied it here by again relying on the banned Briseno factors and again emphasizing Moore's strengths over his deficits, so he joined the reversal.
Dissent — Justice Alito
“We do not grant a certiorari to review evidence and dis- cuss specific facts.”Alito's objection that the Court improperly acted as a factfinder rather than clarifying the legal rule.
Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, argued the real problem was the Court's own failure to provide a clear rule in its 2017 decision, not the Texas court's application of it. He objected that the Court was improperly acting as a factfinder by re-weighing evidence itself rather than sending the case back for the state court to apply a clearly stated legal standard, and said he would have denied review entirely.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- In its earlier 2017 decision, the Court had already identified specific errors in how the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals evaluated adaptive deficits — the everyday-functioning half of the intellectual-disability test — including overemphasizing Moore's strengths, relying on prison-based improvements, and using the discredited Briseno factors, a set of non-clinical, stereotype-based questions Texas courts had used to assess intellectual disability.
- On remand, the Texas court claimed to abandon the Briseno factors and instead apply current medical diagnostic standards, but the Court found that the substance of its analysis repeated the same errors: it again stressed Moore's perceived strengths (like writing letters and courtroom testimony) over his documented deficits, and again leaned on skills he developed only within the controlled setting of prison.
- The Court found that the Texas court's language and reasoning tracked the banned Briseno factors almost word for word, even without naming them, such as citing Moore's ability to plan, communicate coherently, and show leadership as evidence against intellectual disability.
- Because the flawed analysis was central to the Texas court's conclusion, and because removing that flawed analysis left too little to support a contrary finding, the Court determined that the trial court's original finding of intellectual disability should stand rather than sending the case back yet again for another attempt.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Limits Ex parte Briseno (135 S. W. 3d 1)
Reaffirms that Texas courts may not rely on the Briseno factors, non-clinical stereotypes, to assess intellectual disability.
Reaffirms Atkins v. Virginia (536 U. S. 304)
Relies on Atkins' rule that executing people with intellectual disability is unconstitutional.
Reaffirms Hall v. Florida (572 U. S. 701)
Reaffirms that intellectual-disability determinations must follow medical diagnostic standards, not lay judgments.