Is Congress required to establish Article III courts in the United States Territories and Possessions?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Over a half-century ago this Court mentioned, but did not decide, if the conditions in the United States Territories and Possessions had changed so as to require Congress to establish Article III courts in the respective territories. See Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 547-48 & n. 19 (1962). And in Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 8S. Ct. 1199 (2015), this Court recently observed that: The [Administrative Procedures Act (‘APA”)] establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the process of “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” § 551(5). “Rule,” in turn, is defined broadly to include “statement [s] of general or particular applicability and future effect” that are designed to “implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.” § 551(4). 135 S. Ct. at 1203. The questions presented are: 1. Is Congress required to establish Article III courts in the United States Territories and Possessions? 2. Under the APA, and its definition of “rule making,” is there an exception for republication of an agency rule that is editorial in nature, or is the republication subject to the statutory notice-and-comment requirements? i