Judiciary panel advances bill tightening post-conviction standards for intellectual-disability claims in death-penalty cases

The Judiciary Committee voted to report House Bill 1107 with amendments after several hours of contentious testimony and public comment. The bill would codify procedures and standards for evaluating claims that a death-row inmate is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia.

The Attorney General’s office framed the measure as a fix to procedural uncertainty in post-conviction litigation. "We are following the rules and guidelines of the United States Supreme Court," said Principal Deputy Solicitor General Zach Faircloth, explaining the bill would set a clear IQ cutoff and streamline cases that have taken years to resolve. "Four years litigating one claim and it's still stayed at the Louisiana Supreme Court," he said of one case that proponents said shows the need for statutory clarity.

Proponents also emphasized victims’ families. Chief Deputy Attorney General Larry Freeman read a string of violent cases to illustrate the harms those victims’ families continue to endure and urged committee members to back the bill.

Opponents — including the Molly Moses Center for Justice's Robert Morris, longtime defense counsel Megan Garvey and disability advocates — pushed back on multiple fronts. Robert Morris argued the bill as drafted "would allow Louisiana to execute people with intellectual disabilities" and said the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected rigid numerical cutoffs in favor of individualized clinical assessments. "A determination of intellectual disability cannot be made on a single IQ score," he said.

Megan Garvey, representing criminal defense interests, contended the bill raises due-process issues and relies on thresholds that can be manipulated by selecting older or less-appropriate tests. "This bill moves Louisiana away from clinical evaluation and toward statutory exclusion," she told the panel.

Disability advocates and family members described the stakes for people with developmental disabilities. Mary Patricia Ray of the Promise of Justice Initiative said the bill would substitute the judgment of future lawmakers for current medical standards and urged the committee not to adopt language that narrows protections for people with disabilities.

A central flashpoint was a proposed numeric presumption for IQ (debated as 75 versus 80) and whether courts should be permitted to consider adaptive functioning scores for petitioners with IQs in the mid-70s. Opponents argued the Moore and Hall decisions require courts to evaluate the full clinical picture, not a single test score.

The committee adopted amendments and then took a roll call on whether to report the bill to the floor. The roll call recorded several yeas and at least one no; the committee reported HB 1107 with amendments.

The measure will next go to the full chamber, where sponsors and opponents said they expect continued debate and possible legal challenges.