The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the case of Victor Saldaño, a Texas death-row prisoner whose lawyers and state-retained experts say he is intellectually disabled. By turning down his appeal, the Court left intact a Texas appellate ruling that refused to send the case back for an evidentiary hearing, keeping his execution on track in a way his attorneys have called unconscionable. His legal team says it is now pivoting to other last-ditch avenues to try to stop the state from carrying out the death sentence.
High court order and dissent
In its June 22 order list, the Court denied Saldaño’s petition for certiorari. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision to look the other way. According to the opinion text published by the Legal Information Institute, Sotomayor wrote that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ refusal to remand the case effectively blocked any meaningful review on the merits, even though experts for both the defense and the state agreed that Saldaño has significant intellectual deficits.
What he was convicted of
Saldaño was convicted of capital murder in the mid-1990s and later received a death sentence after a retrial, according to records compiled by Justia. His case has wound through the courts for decades, with a resentencing and multiple post-conviction petitions raising questions about his competency and related constitutional claims.
Experts, the state's concession and what filings show
Supreme Court filings detail how both the Office of Capital & Forensic Writs and the state’s own expert assessed Saldaño with IQ scores in the low 70s. The State of Texas told the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that he met the statutory threshold for a full-blown hearing on the merits. In its reply brief in the high court, the Office of Capital & Forensic Writs stressed that both sides had agreed an evidentiary remand was appropriate, yet the Texas court still refused to allow further development of his Atkins claim. Speaking to NPR, Benjamin Wolff, director of the Office of Capital & Forensic Writs, said, “Every expert who has evaluated Mr. Saldaño for intellectual disability agrees he’s intellectually disabled.” His lawyers say they will continue pressing every legal angle to prevent his execution.
Why the legal question matters
The fight turns on core Eighth Amendment doctrine. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court barred the execution of people with intellectual disabilities, and subsequent cases have made clear that courts must weigh IQ scores alongside evidence of adaptive functioning rather than using rigid numerical cutoffs. Legal analysis on SCOTUSblog about decisions such as Moore v. Texas has repeatedly underscored that courts are required to follow contemporary clinical standards when determining intellectual disability. Critics argue that the unusual combination of a prosecutorial concession and a state appeals court’s refusal to remand in Saldaño’s case raises hard questions about whether defendants can secure a merits hearing even when the factual record appears to point toward a constitutional exemption from the death penalty.
What comes next
With the Supreme Court out of the picture, Saldaño’s remaining options are largely confined to clemency requests and further maneuvering in Texas courts. His attorneys insist they will pursue every remaining remedy. For now, the justices’ decision leaves unresolved the thorny procedural issues surrounding how and when intellectual-disability claims in Texas actually get a full evidentiary airing.
.jpg){kind=link}