The case of Shoop v. Hill, 2018, revolved around the issue of whether or not Danny Hill, a death row inmate in Ohio with intellectual disabilities, could be executed. The Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had wrongly applied current medical standards to determine if Hill was intellectually disabled at his original sentencing hearing in 1986 instead of using those from that time period as they should have done according to precedent set by Moore v Texas (2017). This decision meant that despite evidence suggesting he may be too intellectually impaired under modern standards to face execution - including an IQ score potentially as low as 48 - this new information would not necessarily spare him from capital punishment because it did not meet criteria established over three decades ago.

In the dissenting opinion for Shoop v. Hill, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, argued that the majority's decision to overturn a lower court ruling granting habeas relief was premature and unnecessary. They contended that the Sixth Circuit Court had not yet fully considered whether Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim could be reevaluated in light of recent Supreme Court rulings on this issue (Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas). The dissenting justices believed it would have been more appropriate to allow the lower courts to consider these precedents first before intervening at such an early stage in proceedings. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that there was no reasonable dispute over Hill’s adaptive skills; instead arguing there were significant questions about his abilities which warranted further examination under updated legal standards.