Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/218

 546US1

Unit: $$U2

[10-26-06 15:23:52] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 6 (2005)

7

Per Curiam

evidence in mitigation during the sentencing phase of his trial showing that he had low intelligence. The District Court denied Smith’s petition for habeas cor­ pus in 1996. Following several rounds of appeals, remands, and petitions for certiorari to this Court (including one suc­ cessful petition by the State, see Stewart v. Smith, 536 U. S. 856 (2002) (per curiam)), and after we had issued our de­ cision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002), the case returned to the Ninth Circuit. Shortly thereafter, Smith asserted in brieﬁng that he is mentally retarded and cannot, under Atkins, be executed. The Ninth Circuit ordered sus­ pension of all federal habeas proceedings and directed Smith to “institute proceedings in the proper trial court of Arizona to determine whether the state is prohibited from executing [Smith] in accordance with Atkins.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A–2. The court further ordered that the issue whether Smith is mentally retarded must “be determined. . . by a jury trial unless the right to a jury is waived by the par­ ties.” Ibid. The State’s petition for certiorari is granted,* the judg­ ment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded. The Ninth Circuit erred in commanding the Ari­ zona courts to conduct a jury trial to resolve Smith’s mental retardation claim. Atkins stated in clear terms that “ ‘we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] ex­ ecution of sentences.’ ” 536 U. S., at 317 (quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 416–417 (1986); modiﬁcations in original). States, including Arizona, have responded to that challenge by adopting their own measures for adjudicating claims of mental retardation. While those measures might, in their application, be subject to constitutional challenge, Arizona had not even had a chance to apply its chosen proce­
 * Smith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is also granted.