In the case of Moore v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that Texas had used an outdated standard to determine intellectual disability when deciding if Bobby James Moore was eligible for execution. The court found that this violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In a 5-3 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was determined that Texas' method of assessing intellectual disability relied too heavily on stereotypes and didn't adequately consider current medical understanding or standards regarding such disabilities.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore v. Texas, Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the majority that clinical standards should inform the determination of intellectual disability in capital cases. However, he disagreed with their assessment that Bobby James Moore was intellectually disabled according to these standards. He argued that while Moore had difficulties in school and failed a number of his classes, there were also periods where he did well academically and socially which suggested adaptive strengths inconsistent with an intellectual disability diagnosis. Furthermore, Roberts pointed out inconsistencies between different assessments of Moore's IQ scores - some fell within the range for intellectual disability but others did not - making it difficult to definitively say whether or not he met this criterion either.