Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court decision about the death penalty and intellectual disability.

[1]: 40–42 Without an agreed-upon statutory definition of "mental retardation" the Briseno Court attempted to "define that level and degree of mental retardation at which a consensus of Texas citizens would agree that a person should be exempted from the death penalty" by innovating seven additional evidentiary factors for assessing adaptive functioning deficits.

[6] Intellectual disability was raised for the first time in a state habeas petition filed after the Supreme Court decided Atkins.

[7]: 215  The CCA held that the court below was required to apply the Briseno factors when deiciding whether adaptive functioning deficits were related to intellectual disability.

[9]: 1316 First, the Supreme Court considered the CCA finding that Moore did not meet the subaverage intellectual functioning requirement of mental retardation.

Explaining that an IQ of 70 was not a rigid cutoff, the Court found that Moore did met the IQ score requirement for intellectual disability:[7]: 216 [9]: 1329 [In] line with Hall we require that courts continue the inquiry and consider other evidence of intellectual disability where an individual's IQ score, adjusted for the test's standard error, falls within the clinically established range for intellectual-functioning deficits.For the adaptive functioning inquiry, the Court said the reliance on the Briseno factors "created an unacceptable risk of executing an intellectually disabled person" and that a "consensus of Texas citizens" could not exclude people with "mild" intellectual disability from the categorial exemption created by Atkins.

[9]: 1321  The "arbitrary offsetting of deficits against unconnected strengths in which the [Texas Court of Criminal Appeals] engaged" was inconsistent with "prevailing clinical standards".