The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and change frequently; always consult with a qualified professional regarding your specific situation. The author and publisher assume no liability for any actions taken based on this information.
- The 2013 statement focused on an execution scheduled in Georgia
- Federal constitutional limits can shape how states handle death penalty cases
- Georgia clemency decisions are handled by a state executive board
- Why intellectual disability issues can create urgent disputes close to an execution date
- Stays and reviews can involve more than one court at the same time
- Sources
Key Facts
- Federal and state: In February 2013, ABA President Laurel Bellows issued a public statement supporting a stay of execution for Warren Hill and requesting clemency consideration in Georgia.
- Federal level: In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that executing people with intellectual disability violates the Eighth Amendment.
- Federal and state: A stay of execution is described in many court and legal sources as a temporary pause that can allow additional review before an execution proceeds.
- Federal level: The ABA reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted a stay of execution on February 19, 2013, while it considered whether additional federal habeas litigation could proceed in Hill’s case.
- State level: The ABA reported that the Georgia Supreme Court granted a separate stay in 2013 tied to a lethal injection challenge.
- State level: Georgia’s State Board of Pardons and Paroles describes commutation as within its sole constitutional authority to commute a death sentence to life without parole.
- State level: Georgia’s State Board of Pardons and Paroles states that a grant of commutation requires the affirmative vote of three of its five members.
- Federal and state: Many modern legal sources use the term intellectual disability in contexts where older records used the term mental retardation.
As of February 2026, the official sources linked in this article described the rules and processes this way, and details can change over time.
The 2013 statement focused on an execution scheduled in Georgia
According to an American Bar Association death penalty project press page, ABA President Laurel Bellows released a statement on February 19, 2013 that urged a stay of execution for Warren Hill, who was on Georgia’s death row, and also asked for clemency consideration by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles.
That same ABA summary described multiple proceedings moving at once, including court activity in both the federal and state systems, which is common in death penalty litigation because different legal questions can arise in different courts.
Federal constitutional limits can shape how states handle death penalty cases
One major federal constitutional rule in this area comes from Atkins v. Virginia, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars the execution of people with intellectual disability.
Even when a federal constitutional rule applies nationwide, states often still control important parts of the process, such as how state courts evaluate evidence and how state executive clemency systems operate.
Georgia clemency decisions are handled by a state executive board
In Georgia, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles is the executive body that describes its authority to commute (reduce) a death sentence to life without parole and explains how the Board votes on commutation decisions.
In general terms, a court-issued stay of execution and an executive-branch clemency decision are separate mechanisms, even when they address the same underlying case and occur close in time.
Why intellectual disability issues can create urgent disputes close to an execution date
In the ABA’s account of the Hill litigation, expert opinions about intellectual disability were part of the record discussed in court filings, and the ABA framed the situation as raising a serious concern under Atkins.
Older case materials and quotes sometimes use outdated terminology, while many newer court documents and public materials use the term intellectual disability, which can matter for clarity when reading records from different years.
Stays and reviews can involve more than one court at the same time
The ABA summary of February 19, 2013 described a federal stay issued by the Eleventh Circuit and a separate stay referenced in Georgia’s courts, which reflects how a single execution date can be affected by more than one pending legal question.
At a high level, this overlap often involves state post-conviction proceedings, federal habeas corpus litigation, and emergency applications that can reach the U.S. Supreme Court, with each forum applying different legal standards and jurisdictional limits.
