Does a state court unreasonably apply federal law when, in determining whether a person suffered prejudice as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, it disregards this Court's case law recognizing that shackling is inherently prejudicial?

QUESTION PRESENTED A defendant asserting a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must show that counsel’s “deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). This Court has also held that it is “inherently prejudicial” for a defendant to appear before a jury in shackles. Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568 (1986). The circuits are split on the interaction of these bodies of law where a person in state custody brings a habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance because defense counsel failed to object to visible shackling at trial. The Seventh Circuit holds that a state court unreasonably applies federal law, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), if the court fails to account for the inherently prejudicial effect of shackling. By contrast, the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits hold that a state court need not account for this Court’s shackling cases when assessing Strickland prejudice. That holding led the Eleventh Circuit here to deny a habeas petition by a death row inmate who was forced, at sentencing, to reenact his crime while visibly shackled before the jury, with the prosecutor playing the victim. The question presented is: Does a state court unreasonably apply federal law when, in determining whether a person suffered prejudice as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, it disregards this Court’s case law recognizing that shackling is inherently prejudicial?