whether a blanket policy of shackling criminal defendants without an individualized determination of need violates due process?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Ninth Circuit in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 859 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) held that the Fifth Amendment presumptively prohibits the shackling of criminal defendants in all court proceedings. Id. at 661. This Court vacated the Sanchez-Gomez decision on mootness grounds. See United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S.Ct. 1532 (2018). In this case, similar to Sanchez-Gomez, the District Court of the Virgin Islands has a blanket shackling policy. The first question presented is: whether a blanket policy of shackling criminal defendants without an individualized determination of need violates due process? week The Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands provides for the District Court of the Virgin Islands, 48 U.S.C. § 1612, and for the appointment of judges to the bar of the District Court, 48 U.S.C. § 1614. As to appointment and tenure: “[t]he President shall, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint two judges for the District Court of the Virgin Islands, who shall hold office for terms of ten years and until their successors are chosen and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President for cause.” 48 U.S.C. § 1614(a). In this case the judge that presided over the Petitioner’s case exceeded (and continues to exceed) his ten-year statutory term. The second question presented is: can non-Article III judges serve indefinitely? i