In the case of Moore v. Texas in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bobby James Moore was intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling followed a previous decision by the court in 2017 where it found that Texas had used outdated medical standards to determine intellectual disability. However, despite this ruling, a lower court maintained that Moore could be executed because he did not meet its criteria for intellectual disability - an action criticized by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as ignoring current medical understanding on mental disabilities. In her opinion supported by a majority of justices, she emphasized that courts must rely on prevailing views within the clinical community when determining whether someone is intellectually disabled.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore v. Texas, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, argued that the majority had overstepped its authority by rejecting the Texas court's use of a 1992 standard to determine intellectual disability in capital punishment cases. The dissenters believed that it was not within their purview to dictate specific medical standards or frameworks for states to follow when assessing intellectual disability. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "prevailing views" on intellectual disability as being synonymous with clinical consensus. Instead, they contended this should be understood more broadly as reflecting societal norms and values rather than strictly medical definitions.