Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito often find themselves on the same side of cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. But what generally goes unnoticed is how the two justices’ similar yet differing approaches to the law come together to advance better constitutional interpretation for the country.
This dynamic was on full display in the court’s Thursday decision in Hamm v. Smith. The case centered around an Alabama man seeking to overturn his capital punishment sentence on the argument that he is intellectually disabled and therefore can’t be executed under the Eighth and 14th Amendments.
