How Legal Frameworks Overlook People with ADHD and Borderline IQ  

Ever found yourself wondering, “Surely the law must safeguard everybody equally”?  For neurotypical individuals, that may be comforting. But for those with ADHD and borderline intellectual capacity (IQ 70–85), experienced reality is sharply divergent. These individuals are at a double disadvantage: cognitive, social and institutional obstacles pile up, often making them invisible to legal protections meant to facilitate inclusion. As ADHD and borderline IQ are both hidden in many structural paradigms, their intersection exposes a critique of legal models: they are incapable of seeing the quiet battle of neurodiversity.  

Take Liz, who has ADHD and an IQ of 78. At school, she worked herself obsessed trying to keep up, but standardised testing and brittle curricula punished her difference. Afterwards, in the workplace, she had trouble with task initiation and required simple breaks, but HR wrote off her requests as laziness. She was legally entitled to accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but no one informed her about that. So why does the system, both law and practice, punish Liz and millions of others like her?  

Read More: Parenting with Neurodiversity: Nurturing Diverse Minds

Statistical Reality  

1. ADHD and Borderline IQ: Not Rare Bedfellows  

Meta-analyses indicate that people with ADHD tend to exhibit lower intellectual functioning than neurotypical individuals. Frazier et al. (2004) reported mean differences in IQ  of approximately nine points. In adults, meta-analysis reveals a small but significant IQ decline in ADHD groups, especially among those comorbid with other disorders.  

2. Borderline IQ: A Silent Risk Factor  

Borderline intellectual ability (IQ 70–85) is not a classified disability, but it is associated with lower educational, social and mental health outcomes. A systematic review was conducted, and learned that individuals within this IQ range tend to do poorly both academically and socially and have greater risks for psychiatric problems. By way of example, individuals with borderline IQ had more than six times the risk for ADHD or anxiety disorders compared to peers (Salvador-Carulla et al., 2013; Emerson et al., 2010; Dekker & Koot, 2003).  

3. Diagnostic Disparities and Severity  

Both adults with ADHD and borderline/mild intellectual disability exhibit more significant and long-lasting symptoms compared to their neurotypical counterparts. They stay in the range of being diagnosed with ADHD much longer and accrue compounding behavioural and cognitive impairments (Antshel et al., 2007; Reiersen et al., 2008; Gilhooly et al., 2022).  

Read More: High IQ or High Anxiety? Exploring the Link Between Giftedness and Anxiety Disorders

Legal Frameworks  

1. Disability Laws: Inclusion in Principle, Exclusion in Practice  

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) includes ADHD and intellectual disability (Americans with Disabilities Act, 2008), and the UN CRPD enacts inclusive education (United  Nations, 2006). However, persons with borderline IQ and ADHD tend to fall through legal loopholes (Emerson et al., 2010; Salvador-Carulla et al., 2013).  

2. Education  

While IDEA and Section 504 require IEPs for some students (U.S. Department of  Education, 2007), IQ cutoffs leave out those with borderline functioning (Sattler & Ryan,  2009). Research studies on ADHD frequently leave them out altogether (Gilhooly et al., 2022;  Antshel et al., 2007). Educators name inadequate training as the primary obstacle (Re &  Cornoldi, 2010; Kos et al., 2006).  

3. Employment  

ADA accommodations involve self-disclosure, challenging for individuals with cognitive impairments (Madaus et al., 2002). Neurodiversity efforts do not commonly involve individuals with borderline IQ, who don’t fit standard high-functioning patterns (Santuzzi et al., 2014; Jahoda et al., 2009; Schalock et al., 2010). 

Read More: Understanding the Learning Disabilities During Childhood

The Cost of Invisibility  

1. Justice System Vulnerabilities  

Youth with learning disabilities or ADHD are disproportionately represented in the justice system. Police and courts in the UK fail to detect these diagnoses, resulting in increased sentences (Young et al., 2011). The Prison Reform Trust report identified that 68% of youth offending staff associated ADHD with longer custodial sentences (Talbot, 2010). Without regular screening, behavioural problems are misconstrued as defiance, not disability (Gordon  & Wong, 2010; Hughes et al., 2012).  

2. Academic Difficulty and Social Misunderstanding  

Borderline IQ and ADHD interfere with executive functions such as planning and self-regulation. Impacted students frequently slip through educational cracks. Teachers who are not trained misread behaviours as laziness or disobedience (Re & Cornoldi, 2010; Kos et al., 2006),  resulting in bad grades, low self-esteem and ongoing stress (Kidd et al., 2010; Barkley, 2012).  

3. Mental Health Consequences  

A Norwegian sample found that half of those with borderline IQ had psychiatric disorders, chiefly ADHD and anxiety (Gjervan et al., 2011). Poor support contributes to their distress, over and above cognitive burden, misdiagnosis and stigma (Salvador-Carulla et al.,  2013; Emerson et al., 2010).  

Read More: Medical v/s Social Model of Disability: Understanding Disability from Two Perspectives 

Executive Dysfunction as the Invisible Barrier  

One of the most neglected common impairments in people with ADHD and borderline IQ is executive dysfunction, the constellation of cognitive processes that control attention, planning, memory, time and impulse control. Executive dysfunction is different from visible disabilities, which present behind social misconceptions such as “laziness” or “irresponsibility.” 

Such impairments are profoundly disabling in day-to-day functioning but infrequently acknowledged in policy or practice (Barkley, 2012; Brown, 2009). For example, individuals with ADHD might get stuck on initiating tasks or sustained attention, but individuals with borderline IQ might have trouble generalising learning across settings (Gilhooly et al., 2022). 

The problem is exacerbated in systems where achievement depends on executive control, such as school deadlines, legal requirements, or accommodations regulated by the individual. One student may be aware that they have homework due, but get bogged down on planning the sequence to get it done. Within a legal context, ignoring documents on time can be seen as negligence and not as neurocognitive impairment.

Even though executive functioning is a pillar of adaptive life skills, few laws or inclusion models screen for or consider these deficits (Re & Cornoldi, 2010). Without systemic recognition, support structures remain inaccessible to those who most need them, not because they cannot understand the rules, but because their minds aren’t built to navigate them unaided.  

Why Legal Blind Spots Persist  

1. IQ Cut-offs in Research: A Cautionary Irony  

In order to ensure homogeneity, ADHD studies necessarily exclude those with an IQ of less than 85 (Antshel et al., 2007; Gilhooly et al., 2022). In a tragic irony, the excluded are precisely those who would gain most from intervention. Exclusion lowers the ecological validity of findings and fills in the knowledge gap, failing those who need help most (Salvador Carulla et al., 2013; Emerson et al., 2010).  

2. The Binary Logic of the Law  

Legal frameworks rely disproportionately on categorical frameworks. You’re either disabled or not. But borderline IQ falls into a category of uncertainty. You don’t cut intellectual disability, and your ADHD has to meet yet more arbitrary thresholds. Legal categories thus fall short in capturing the “in-between” cases, exactly those identified by studies as at-risk (MacMillan et al., 2014; Schalock et al., 2010).  

3. Lack of Awareness and Training  

Teachers, employers and advisors usually receive no training in ADHD or borderline  IQ. ADHD can be diagnosed in school children, but borderline IQ is not screened (Kos et al.,  2006; Re & Cornoldi, 2010). In workplace accommodations models, they are just not there,  resulting in a gap between diagnosis, awareness and action (Madaus et al., 2002; Jahoda et al.,  2009). 

Read More: UDID in India: Streamlining Identity and Access for Persons with Disabilities

Toward an Inclusive Future  

1. Rethinking Research Designs  

Frontiers in Psychology suggests opening up participant participation to individuals with borderline IQ to better understand ADHD in actual population groups (Gilhooly et al.,  2022). That involves modifying predictive IQ cut-offs and creating protocols that mimic cognitive diversity (Antshel et al., 2007; Reiersen et al., 2008).  

2. Legal and Policy Reforms  

• Redefine eligibility thresholds: Move away from IQ-based cut-offs to functional impact measures (Schalock et al., 2010).  
• Incorporate regular cognitive assessments: Schools and mental health agencies should screen for borderline IQ and ADHD at an early age (Salvador-Carulla et al., 2013).  
• 3Provide instructor training: Add modules for cognitive heterogeneity, instructional differentiation and accommodations (Re & Cornoldi, 2010; Kos et al., 2006).  
• 4Ease the accommodations process: Streamline the process of requesting and applying accommodations such as longer deadlines or decreased distractions in schools and workplaces  (Madaus et al., 2002; Santuzzi et al., 2014).  

3. Advocacy and Awareness  

Neurodiversity movements need to acknowledge ADHD with borderline IQ as belonging to the spectrum, not merely savant autism or gifted dyslexia. Advocacy organisations need to pressure research for funding, individually adapted support and systemic awareness campaigns (Armstrong, 2012; Jaarsma & Welin, 2012; Pellicano & Stears, 2011).  

Conclusion  

Those at the nexus of ADHD and borderline IQ exist in society’s blind spot. Empirical evidence indicates increased susceptibility to mental health problems, legal injustice and socioeconomic marginalisation. However, legal frameworks and research designs also miss them too frequently. The outcome is not benign omission; it is structural neglect. The way forward needs courage and clarity. We need to revolutionise research paradigms to accommodate cognitive diversity.

Laws need to be adaptive enough to cover the cracks. Further, society needs to be educated so that when a person like Liz goes looking for help, she’s not diverted into a maze of indifference or bureaucracy. Shattering this cycle involves making “functional impact” the metric of choice, not IQ  or diagnostic type. With that shift, we can take inclusion and re-engineer it to truly be inclusive.  

FAQs  

1. What is the significance of focusing on individuals with both ADHD and borderline  IQ? 

People with ADHD and borderline IQ (IQ 70–85) face dual vulnerabilities, cognitive and functional, which often go unrecognised in law, education and employment systems.  Addressing their needs is essential for equitable inclusion.  

2. Why are people with borderline IQ often excluded from legal protections? 

Legal frameworks typically rely on strict diagnostic cut-offs, categorising individuals as either disabled or not. Those with borderline IQ often don’t meet criteria for intellectual disability,  leaving them without support despite significant challenges.  

3. How do educational policies fail students with ADHD and borderline IQ? 

Many educational systems set IQ thresholds for support, excluding students in the borderline range. Additionally, teachers often lack training to recognise the combined impact of ADHD  and borderline IQ, leading to misinterpretation of behaviours.  

4. What role does executive dysfunction play in their exclusion? 

Executive dysfunction, common in both ADHD and borderline IQ, impairs planning, focus and impulse control. These invisible difficulties often go unsupported because legal and institutional systems don’t assess or accommodate them.  

5. How are individuals with ADHD and borderline IQ affected in the justice system? 

Without proper screening, courts often interpret ADHD-related behaviour as defiance. This misinterpretation contributes to disproportionately harsh outcomes for youth with these neurodevelopmental traits. 

6. What are the recommended changes to make legal and institutional systems more inclusive? 

Reforms include shifting from IQ-based criteria to functional assessments, routine cognitive screenings, educator training, simplified accommodations processes and advocacy that includes individuals with borderline IQ within the neurodiversity movement.