# Amicus Curiae Brief — United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S. Ct. 1532 (2018) (No. 17-312)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0778%3A11

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2018

## Text

No. 17-312

IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,
v.

RENE SANCHEZ-GOMEZ, ET AL..,
Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari
to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit

BRIEF OF FORMER JUDGES, FORMER
PROSECUTORS, FORMER GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS, LAW PROFESSORS, AND SOCIAL
SCIENTISTS AS AMICI CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

JUDITH RESNIK MEIR FEDER
127 Wall St. Counsel of Record
New Haven, CT 06511 JONES DAY
250 Vesey St.
STEPHEN I. VLADECK New York, NY 10281
727 E. Dean Keeton St. (212) 326-3939
Austin, TX 78705 mfeder@jonesday.com
SARAH L. LEVINE
JONES DAY

51 Louisiana Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001

[Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover]
a es

[Continued from Cover]

AMANDA K. RICE
JONES DAY

150 W. Jefferson Ave.
Suite 2100

Detroit, MI 48226

CHRISTINA N. LINDBERG
ELI M. TEMKIN
ADRIENNE L. KAUFMAN
JONES DAY

90 S. 7th St.

Suite 4950
Minneapoiis, MN 55402

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIEG..................0.c-seseccecseeeeees iil
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .....................0ccccc000s 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.........000...................00000- 1
FTE atic biviitcinabisipinininbiiniliatiiniteriienninmenintesites 5
1. The Importance of the Underlying Question

Is Central to the Propriety of Appellate

Jurisdiction, and this Case Centers on

Critical Questions of Constitutional Law ........... 5

Il. Criminal Defendants’ Constitutional Right to
Be Treated with Dignity in Public
Proceedings Intersects with the Public’s
Constitutional Interest in Observing Court
Proceedings that Respect the Presumption of
Innocence and the Equality of All Persons
nn 8

A. The Constitution Mandates that Crim-
inal Proceedings Be Open to the Pub-
lic, and the Constitution Protects How
Defendants Are Treated in

B. Judges Have Constitutional and Com-
mon Law Obligations to Regulate
Courtroom Conduct Both to Ensure
Criminal Defendant’s Due Process
Rights and Article IT] Values of
Judicial Impartiality..........................00.0000 14

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page

C. All Participants Must Respect the
Unique Environment of Courtrooms,
and the Design of Courtrooms Makes
Manifest the Public’s Important Role
in the Administration of Justice..............--- 17

IIL. Blanket Five-Point Shackling Is Incompat-
ible with Criminal Defendants’ Due Pro-
cess Rights and with the Public’s Interest
in Observing Dignified Courtroom Pro-
cesses Reflecting Those Constitutional
Commit Ment ............----c0ccceeeeeeeesneenenennenennenenees 25

IV. Given the Centrality of this Issue to Ameri-
can Justice, Appellate Review Was War-

il

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)

CASES
Abney v. United States,

431 U.S. G51 (1977) .........ccccceceeeeeeeeneeeeeeneeeenenennes 5, 6
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

BBG U.S. 662 (2OO9)..............0ccccceceeeeeeneeseessennrenenerens 6
Baer v. Salt Lake City Corp.,

705 F. App’x 727 (10th Cir. 2017)........00--ceeeeeeees 15
Bank v. Katz

No. 08-CV-1033, 2009 WL 3077147

(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2009)..........:ccccccecceeceeeeeeeeennes 21
Carey v. Musladin,

549 U.S. 70 (2006)..............ecccceceeeeneeeeeeneesenneneneeees 19
Cheney v. United States Dist. Court

for D.C.,

542 U.S. 367 (2004).......cccccccccserecseesenerseseseneneres 6, 29
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan

Corp.,

B37 U.S. 541 (1949) .....cccce: ccccceceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeees 5, 29
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay,

ABT U.S. 463 (1978).........cccccccccceeeeeeeeeneeeeeneesnensnanens 5
Cox v. Louisiana

379 U.S. BBO (1965) ..........ccccccccceeceeeeeeeeeenennnnennenees 14
Deck v. Missouri,

BAA U.S. G22 (ZOOS) .........cccccccceceeeeeeeeeennenens passim
Estelle v. Williams,

425 U.S. 501 (1976).........cccccccecsessrssereeeencseessrenensnees 8

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court

for Norfolk Cty.,

I is icnsiccctsercsindimedinibocibatinciiadaiatensnbidele 13
Hodge v. Talkin,

799 F.3d 1145 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ...........ccccccceeeeeeeees 14
In re Globe Newspaper Co.,

Fe as Se Ce Ge BD veccccctcccnccecconncccsccvccosees 12
Kentucky v. Stincer,

EE TET inccnisciniibcnideihiautsdesbisiibianiiceniiniesieet 26
La Rocca v. Lane,

338 N.E.2d 606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975) ............ 20, 21
La Rocca v. Lane,

366 N.Y.S.2d 456 (N.Y.A.D. 1975)..........0000...00000- 21
Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez,

IIIT cchiccticnadnsdeccenadnéoncessiemsstdsonente 11
Mitchell v. Forsyth,

tA a eee ee 6
Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter,

SI STII icinicien cihancsditscnsniptenantaceoammsasatcons 5
Nestel v. Moran

Ts IED inc nchiscdncsiidnnninnienncinmsiiahine 16
Norris v. Risley

918 F.2d 828 (9th Cir. 1990)................ccccccceeeeeeees 20
People v. Best,

979 N.E.2d 1187
nee Ue HIE CTT iintoincshiicnnicndectsoeicenadtaindatidenintitennts 27

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)

People v. Buchanan,

912 N.E.2d 553 (N.Y. 2009) .000..........ccccecceeeeeeeenees 22
People v. Pennisi,

563 N.Y.S.2d 612

COE. TR GR, SETI cccocccccccccccccseccsssecscesccosesssssenes 20
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.,

Oe Be ee i tcatetincciccensscsonsneccccssescssccccscscens 11
Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of

Cal., Riverside Cty.,

464 U.S. 501 (1984) 0000... eeceeeseeeeeeeeeeeeereeees 11, 28
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,

448 U.S. 555 (1980)............cccccccecceeeeseeeeeeeeees passim
Sefick v. Gardner,

164 F.3d 370 (7th Cir. 1998) .0...........cccccceeeeeeeeeees 14
Sell v. United States,

Se ey He I sicsncscccsancessoccesccccsccseccennsesssces 5, 6
Sheppard v. Maxwell,

Se NE SET rcncniiesinecsmennetonsensveuioesinsteesnoanies 15
Smith v. Doe,

I Ht AIT cnnsenisoncsecsienedieccsensseemnnsaanenctocnssonnens 9
Stack v. Boyle,

Ey ib MI Docecensctantdensacadnnctessstetencisonsecsescnecntsd 6
State v. Franklin,

327 S.E.2d 449 (W. Va. 1985) ..........0ccccecceeeeeeeeeeee 20
State v. Pelletier

786 A.2d GOO (Me. 2001) ...........cccccccceeeeeeseeeeeeeenens 16

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)

U.S. ex rel. Robson v. Malone,

Se ce ee Ey Be irccarcectccrcescncccsectenseacs 16
United States v. Abascal

509 F.2d 7652 (9th Cir. 1975)................cc.ccccsseoceeee 16
United States v. Abuhamra,

380 F.3d 308 (2d Cir. 2004) ............cccccccccccccsscseees 12
United States v. Chagra,

701 F.2d 364 (Ges Cir. 1068)........cccccccccoccecsccceeeces 12
United States v. Durham,

287 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2002)..................-.....2... 22
United States v. Peoples

606 F.3d 185 (4th Cir. 2012)..............cccccccccccceceees 16
United States v. Simone,

14 F.3d B33 (Sd Cir. 1004) ..........cc.ccccccccccccccccescees 12
Waller v. Georgia,

es 10, 11, 13
Woods v. Dugger

923 F.2d 1454 (11th Cir. 1991)............................ 20
STATUTES
ES RO ae dns eD Ten 16
I i enadienh 16

Oe I TIE soinsretcicirnns bisisclnnduinisimanivsoinctidicednepindatinsienen 18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)

OTHER AUTHORITIES

3 E. Coke,
Insitutes of the Laws of England 34
PPI iccniidie is ciiiadeinecapisbdicinbenientesiiteinauandaandnecnennnetietns 27

4 JEREMY BENTHAM,
Draught for the Organization of
Judicial Establishments, Compared
with that of the National Assembly,
with a Commentary on the Same,
THE WORKS OF JEREMY BENTHAM 305
(John Bowring ed., 1838-1843) ................000+ 10, 11

Justice Stephen G. Breyer,
Foreword to
CELEBRATING THE COURTHOUSE
(Steven Flanders ed., 2006)..................... 10, 12, 17

Canon City Municipal Court,
Courtroom Dress and Attire................ccccceeeeeeeeees 19

Circuit Court of Illinois,
Eight Judicial Circuit,
Uniform Rules of Practice 1.11.....................e0e0+ 18

Code of Conduct for the Public,
EET Ee ee a 19

Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges,
NE iris cotinendrescareeiagsedtenmeninienicéessesetnnmptennies 15

Courtroom Etiquette and Attire,
WASHTENAW CTY. TRIAL CP. .....coccoccsccccccccssccccsccees 19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)

FAQs—Visiting the Court,
SUPREME COURT OF THE

RETESET
a a. isenomnnginatinn

Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations for 2016:
Hearing Before the Subcomm.

on Fin. Servs.,

114th Cong. 109 (2015) ........:cececesceseeeeeeees

Jona Goldschmidt,
“Order in the Court!” Constitutional
Issues in the Law of Courtroom
Decorum,

31 HAMLINE L. REV. 1 (2008) ...................

Judicial Conference of the United
States: Committees (Chronological),

PEED. DUR. CFR. ..cccccocccccesssceccccccccseccscesseceoee

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES,
Portable Communication Devices in

the Courthouse (2017) .............ccceeeeseeeeeeees

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES,
Report of the Proceedings of the
Judicial Conference of the United

I GI ccsitcccinncseicnteccsvetesonnnssinnntecrsnenes

rarentnensts 22

ing

ix

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES,

U.S. COURTS DESIGN GUIDE (1991)..........

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES,

U.S. COURTS DESIGN GUIDE (2007)..........

Jury Frequently Asked Questions,

ES RS a Se Si

Al Kamen,
In the Loop,

Wash. Post, Sept. 11, 2009 ......................

Joan M. Krauskopf,
Physical Restraint of the Defendant
in the Courtroom,

15 St. Louts U.L. J. 351 (1971) ...............

Kristin A. Lane, Jerry Kang &
Mahzarin R. Banaji,
Implicit Social Cognition and Law,

ANN. REV. L. & Soc. SCI., 3 (2007)...........

Samuel J. Levine,
Religious Symbols and Religious
Garb in the Courtroom: Personal
Values and Public Judgments,

66 FORDHAM L. REV. 1505 (1998).............

Municipal Court Dress Code,

BA IIE TION. ccccsccccccccceccccccoccocccescecss

sidoeenees 19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)

Chief Justice John G. Roberts,
2010 Year-End Report on the

Jocelyn Simonson,
The Criminal Court Audience in a
Post-Trial World,

127 HARV. L. REV. 2173 (2014) ................

The Court and Its Traditions,
SUPREME COURT OF THE

Eli A AD

Tom R. Tyler,
Does the American Public Accept the
Rule of Law? The Findings of
Psychological Research on Deference
to Authority,

56 DEPAUL L. REV. 661 (2007).................

Tom R. Tyler,
WHY PEOPLE OBEY THE LAW

SE EE iiccieasemediintninhectcniioniincsieinanénse

U.S. COURTS,
U.S. District Courts—Criminal
Defendants Terminated, by Type of
Disposition and Offense—During the
12-Month Period Ending
December 31, 2016,
STATISTICAL TABLES FOR THE

PRAT, DUMIOCIATEY .occcccccccecosccccescceccoccecces

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)

U.S. GEN. SERVS. ADMIN.,
2 VISION + VOICE: CHANGING THE
COURSE OF FEDERAL ARCHITECTURE

U.S. GEN. SERVS. ADMIN.,
James M. Carter and Judith N.

Keep US Courthouse....................cccece0eeees

U.S. GEN. SERVS. ADMIN.,
JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY U.S.
COURTHOUSE AND HARBOR PARK

U.S. GEN. SERVS. ADMIN.,
THE SITE SECURITY DESIGN GUIDE

Douglas P. Woodlock,
Drawing Meaning from the Heart of
the Courthouse,
CELEBRATING THE COURTHOUSE

(Steven Flanders ed., 2006) .....................

Page(s)

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici are former judges, former prosecutors, for-
mer government officials, law professors focused on
the jurisprudence of the federal courts, and social sci-
entists expert on human perception and behavior. We
write to provide this Court with our understanding of
why the question of the constitutionality of blanket
shackling of all criminal defendants during pretrial
courtroom proceedings is so important that it fits the
criteria for immediate appellate review. Post-trial ap-
peals cannot vindicate defendants’ due process rights
to dignified treatment or protect the public’s interest
in observing criminal proceedings in which all defend-
ants are treated as individuals and entitled to the pre-
sumption of innocence. !

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

To decide the propriety of appellate jurisdiction
under either the “collateral order” rule or supervisory
mandamus requires consideration of the importance
of the issue presented on appeal. The underlying issue
here meets that requirement.

Appellate review was sought because of the deci-
sion by the judges of the Southern District of Califor-
nia to accede to the U.S. Marshals Service’s request
that all criminal defendants appear in court during
pre-trial proceedings in five-point shackles—leg and
arm irons, connected with a belly chain. Whether

1 In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amici state
that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part,
and that no person or entity, other than amici and their counsel,
made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation
aud submission of this brief. Counsel of record for all parties have
consented in writing to the filing of this brief.

2

charged with misdemeanors or felonies and whether
physically able or infirm, every criminal defendant
was required to appear before magistrate and district
court judges in shackled restraints.

In Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), this
Court held that the Constitution “forbids the use of
visible shackles during the penalty phase” in a capital
case. Id. at 624. This Court concluded that shackling
in front of a jury violated the defendant’s due process
rights; absent specific and individualized showings of
an “essential state interest,” based on “physical secu-
rity, escape prevention, or courtroom decorum,” shack-
ling was not permissible. Jd. at 624, 628.

Deck focused on the impact of shackles on jurors,
who, while central to criminal proceedings, are not the
only persons who have a constitutionally protected
role in courts. The public has a First Amendment
right to watch criminal proceedings. See Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (plu-
rality opinion). In addressing why the First Amend-
ment protects the public’s right to attend criminal tri-
als, Chief Justice Burger discussed the centrality of
“publicity” (borrowing that term from Jeremy Ben-
tham) to our legal system. Id. at 569.

As Chief Justice Burger explained, the public’s
presence has several functions. Attendance “contrib-
ute|s] Lo public understanding of the rule of law and
to comprehension of the functioning of the entire crim-
inal justice system.” Jd. at 573 (citation omitted).
Moreover, open courts enable the public to see and to
understand that justice is done, and open courts pro-
tect the public’s right to gather and disseminate infor-
mation. Id. at 570-73.

3

This case is at the intersection of the due process
principles of the presumption of innocence and the
dignity of criminal defendants, which were central to
Deck, and the important educative function played by
open courts, which animated Richmond Newspapers
and its progeny. Criminal defendants—unless and un-
til adjudicated guilty—are cloaked in a presumption
of innocence, and the public has a right to attend pro-
ceedings that put that precept into practice. Justice
must not only be visible but also comport with these
constitutional commitments

Since Richmond Newspapers, the Court has held
that the public’s First Amendment attendance rights
are not limited to trials. Those rulings reflect the im-
portance of the entire criminal justice process, from
arraignment through sentencing. More than 75,000
criminal defendants had their cases resolved in fed-
eral district courts in 2016; fewer than 2000 of those
dispositions were by bench or jury criminal trials. Pro-
ceedings other than trial are the core of today’s federal
criminal justice system.

A myriad of rules organizes the ways in which all
people—judges, litigants, lawyers, jurors, witnesses,
bailiffs, marshals, and the public—must behave in
court. A mix of constitutional law, statues, regula-
tions, and customs point to the same conclusion:
Courtrooms are cen‘ral to American law, and behavior
and attire must honor this unique space.

This Court and lower courts insist that members
of the audience dress appropriately, rise when judges
enter the room, sit quietly, and do nothing that would
distract from the solemnity of decision-making about
the rights and obligations of the disputants. Moreover,
significant resources have been invested in building

4

courthouses that welcome the public, and design
guides developed by the U.S. judiciary specifically re-
quire ample public seating in courtrooms.

Blanket five-point shackling is visibly and disrup-
tively inconsistent with these core constitutional val-
ues and practices. The government decision to stigma-
tize all defendants fails to give them their constitu-
tional due as individuals and undermines public un-
derstandings of the process as even-handed. Condi-
tioning criminal defendants’ rights to be present in
court on being placed in five-point shackles does not
reflect the distinctive function of the courtroom as the
place where all individuals are presumed innocent
and equal before the law.

To be sure, maintaining security is crucial, and do-
ing so requires assistance from the U.S. Marshals, un-
der the guidance of the United States Judicial Confer-
ence Committee on Security. But ensuring courtroom
safety has long been accomplished without daily, in-
discriminate shackling of all criminal defendants in
all pretrial matters. Rather, as both Deck and Rich-
mond Newspapers direct, neither the blanket use of
shackles nor the generic closing of courtrooms is per-
missible. The tests of Deck and of Richmond Newspa-
pers should govern here, rather than doctrines of def-
erence to security personnel in detention centers that,
unlike courts, are not venues presumptively open to
the public.

Appellate review during the pretrial stage of the
proceedings was proper because the question of the
constitutionality of indiscriminate shackling of all
criminal] defendants during the pretrial process meets
all the criteria of the “collateral order doctrine” and of
supervisory mandamus. The issue is not mooted by

5

the conviction of individual defendants, some of whom
have been repeatedly shackled in San Diego federal
courts.

ARGUMENT

I. The Importance of the Underlying Question
Is Key to Appellate Jurisdiction, and this
Case Centers on Critical Questions of Con-
stitutional Law.

This Court’s grant of certiorari focused on appeal-
ability and mootness. The Ninth Circuit panel heard
the appeal under the “collateral order” doctrine; the
en banc panel exercised review relying on its supervi-
sory mandamus authority. Amici address one prong of
the propriety of appellate review—the importance of
the Southern District of California’s policy that man-
dated five-point shackles for all criminal defendants
in all pre-trial proceedings.

Collateral review is available only in a narrow cat-
egory of cases. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), identified the need for such
review. In the decades since, this Court has clarified
Cohen’s limited application. This Court has rejected
the idea that all pretriai decisions, even if they sound
the “death knell” of a case, could justify interlocutory
appeals. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463,
468 (1978). Rather, collateral order appeals are per-
missible in rare instances, and generally only when
holding a trial under the challenged conditions causes
the very injury that gives rise to the need for appeal.
See, e.g., Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977);
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003); Mohawk In-
dus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009).

6

Bail is a classic example. See Stack v. Boyle, 342
U.S. 1 (1951). Another is whether a defendant can be
forced to take medication in order to stand trial. See
Sell, 539 U.S. 166. A third line of cases recognizes ap-
peal as-of-right when defendants assert immunity
from trial—based on double jeopardy, see Abney, 431
U.S. 651, or qualified or absolute immunity in the civil
context, see Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27
(1985); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). These
cases exemplify the types of issues subject to collateral
appellate review: important, severable, finally de-
cided questions generally involving constitutional
rights that emerge before a final judgment and which
would, in essence, be extinguished once the trial has
concluded.

Shackling all criminal defendants under a dis-
trict-wide policy fits squarely within these parameters.
The opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of a
general policy of placing criminal defendants in
shackles for all pre-trial proceedings in public courts
is lost if denied below and not reviewed immediately.
Further, the public’s interest in watching courtroom
proceedings that respect criminal defendants’ due pro-
cess rights to individual treatment can only be vindi-
cated when the harm imposed is alleviated, which is
during pretrial proceedings.

Supervisory mandamus is the other . °sis for ap-
pellate jurisdiction. This Court has relied on that doc-
trine to permit appellate review when there is “no
other adequate means to attain the relief” requested,
the petitioner’s right is “clear and indisputable,” and
“exceptional circumstances” render relief “appropri-
ate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. United States
Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004).

7

Central to both of these doctrines of appellate ju-
risdiction is the importance of the underlying issue—
or, in the language of supervisory mandamus, the “ex-
ceptional” nature of the circumstances. Putting all
criminal defendants during pre-trial proceedings in
five-point shackles as a condition of their participa-
tion in public proceedings is an “exceptional” act in
American legal history.

This Court decided in Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S.
622 (2005), that visibly shackling defendants before
juries was impermissible, unless the state established
its “essential . . . interest” in a specific individual’s
case. Id. at 624. What was not decided in Deck is the
permissibility of shackling defendants outside the
presence of the jury, during the pre-trial process be-
fore judges and the public. This Court has also decided
in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555
(1980), and its progeny that the First Amendment
right to watch courtroom proceedings aims to enable
education about and understanding of the administra-
tion of criminal justice.

Because this Court’s decisions protect defendants’
due process rights and the public’s right to be present
at trial and at related proceedings, this case brings a
central and vitally important question of American
justice to the fore: How will defendants be treated dur-
ing pre-trial proceedings, and what will people learn
about the constitutional treatment of criminal defend-
ants when they are in U.S. courthouses?

8

II. Criminal Defendants’ Constitutional Right
to Be Treated with Dignity in Public Pro-
ceedings Intersects with the Public’s Consti-
tutional Interest in Observing Court Pro-
ceedings that Respect the Presumption of
Innocence and the Equality of All Persons
Before the Law.

Given that the propriety of appellate review turns
in part on the importance and exceptional nature of
the issues, Amici provide an overview of the bodies of
law and the practices that form the principle that
courtrooms are sacrosanct spaces in American law in
which the rights of defendants and of the public con-
verge.

As we detail, a host of constitutional and statutory
regulations organize the format of courtroom proceed-
ings and the contours of courthouses. Law prevents
rowdy crowds from gathering outside courthouses,
and law circumscribes what people can wear and how
they can behave inside courtrooms. These regulations
have two purposes: to protect the rights of litigants
and to reflect Article III courts’ commitments to the
neutrality and integrity of judicial proceedings.

A. The Constitution Mandates that Crimi-
nal Proceedings Be Open to the Public,
and the Constitution Protects How De-
fendants Are Treated in Courtrooms.

Much of the law on defendants’ garb in U.S. court-
rooms has focused on the impact of dress and of re-
straint on juries. See, e.g., Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S.
501 (1976); Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005). But
jurors are not the only members of the public entitled,
as a matter of constitutional right, to be present in the

9

courtroom and for whom the defendants’ appearance
matters.

When members of the public walked into the fed-
eral district court in San Diego in the fall of 2013, they
were confronted with criminal defendants chained in
five-point shackles. From October 2013 through No-
vember 2015, when the policy was suspended a few
months after the Ninth Circuit panel decision, see Pet.
App. 7la, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California placed all defendants
in five-point shackles. That policy did not take into ac-
count the crimes charged, physical abilities, or the
amount of information available about individual de-
fendants. See J.A. 76-79. Defendants were shackled
for pre-trial appearances and, apparently, occasion-
ally for sentencing. See Pet. App. at la—5a; 73a—75a.

None of the individuals was assessed as to their
potential to be dangerous. Rather, the four Respond-
ents, Rene Sanchez-Gomez, Moises Patricio-Guzman,
Jasmin Isabel Morales, and Mark William Ring, were
forced to appear in shackles in the courtrooms of mag-
istrate and district court judges in the James M.
Carter and Judith N. Keep United States Courthouse
and in the Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building and
U.S. Courthouse.

When the government puts a person in shackles,
it marks that person as a threat. The Constitution
permits various forms of intrusion on individual lib-
erty, despite their stigmatizing effect, but only after
an individualized assessment to ensure accuracy and
fairness. See, e.g., Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003)
(upholding post-conviction registries of sex offenders
based on the process of factfinding and decisionmak-
ing that undergirds them). Courtrooms, in other

10

words, are places where “the judicial branch of gov-
ernment treats each citizen before it not as a member
of a group but as a separate human being.” Justice
Stephen G. Breyer, Foreword to CELEBRATING THE
COURTHOUSE 9, 11 (Steven Flanders ed., 2006).

Indiscriminate shackling breaches the due pro-
cess obligation to treat criminal defendants as individ-
uals, entitled to be presumed innocent. A policy of
shackling all criminal defendants likewise under-
mines the public’s interest in observing dignified pro-
ceedings that exemplify American commitments to re-
spect defendants’ rights and the rule of law.

The public’s right of access to criminal proceed-
ings is a bedrock principle of our judicial system,
founded in traditions of the common law and pro-
tected by the First Amendment, and is intertwined
with defendants’ rights to public proceedings. Rich-
mond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 580; Waller v. Georgia,
467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984); Jocelyn Simonson, The Crimi-
nal Court Audience in a Post-Trial World, 127 HARV.
L. REV. 2173 (2014). This Court and lower courts have
explained the history and the importance of these
rights, today understood as running from arraign-
ment and bail to probable cause, preliminary hear-
ings, voir dire, sentencing, and post-trial hearings.

The openness of courts has many utilities, but as
Chief Justice Burger concluded, “it would be difficult
to single out any aspect of government of higher con-
cern and importance to the people than the manner in
which criminal trials are conducted.” Richmond
Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 575. The constitutional guar-
antee of open courts reflected what Jeremy Bentham
called “publicity,” id. at 569, which Bentham termed
the “soul of justice,” see 4 JEREMY BENTHAM, Draught

11

for the Organization of Judicial Establishments, Com-
pared with that of the National Assembly, with a Com-
mentary on the Same, in THE WORKS OF JEREMY BEN.
THAM 305, 316 (John Bowring ed., 1838-1843).

As Bentham explained, courts are schools for jus-
tice, id. at 317, teaching that law treats everyone as
equals and assesses individual claims on their merits.
As this Court put it, the inclusion of the public pro-
vides a form of “legal education” that “hopefully pro-
motes confidence in the fair administration of jus-
tice.” Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 572 (citation
omitted).

This educative function is not limited to trials. In-
deed, “since the development of trial by jury, the pro-
cess of selection of jurors has presumptively been a
public process with exceptions only for good cause
shown.” Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.,
Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 505 (1984). Whether at
voir dire, suppression hearings, or other proceedings,
the goal is for the public to see a defendant who “is
fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned.” Waller,
467 U.S. at 46 (citing T. Cooley, CONSTITUTIONAL LIM.
ITATIONS 647 (8th ed. 1927)).

In addition to the law on public access, the integ-
rity of judicial proceedings has been protected by this
Court’s insistence that the “judicial Department” be
protected from encroachment that would diminish its
authority. See, e.g., Plaut vu. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.,
514 U.S. 211, 226-27 (1995). And, in so doing, the
Court has emphasized the importance of presenting
the values of judicial integrity to the public. See, e.z.,
Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 545-46
(2001) (finding that a restriction on lawyers violated

12

separation-of-powers principles and the First Amend-
ment when it would lead “[t]he courts and the pub-
lic ... to question the adequacy and fairness” of the
judicial process). In short, as Justice Breyer has ex-
plained, courthouses belong “not just to the judges or
courts or lawyers but to the public as well.” Breyer,
Foreword to CELEBRATING THE COURTHOUSE at 9.

These ertwined themes—the obligations of the
criminal justice system to treat criminal defendants
fairly, public rights to attend, the importance of court-
houses in American law, and the integrity of Article
III courts—undergird a host of public access provi-
sions. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 10(a) re-
quires that arraignments “be conducted in open court.”
Bail hearings must likewise be open, for the “contem-
poraneous review’ of criminal prosecutions ‘in the fo-
rum of public opinion’ serves as an important re-
straint on abuse of government power.” United States
v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 323 (2d Cir. 2004) (quot-
ing In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270 (1948)). Accord In
re Globe Newspaper Co., 729 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1984);
United States v. Chagra, 701 F.2d 354, 362 (5th Cir.
1983). As Judge Frank Coffin stated in Globe Newspa-
per, public access to bail hearings serves “the need for
a public educated in the workings of the justice system
and for a justice system subjected to the scrutiny of
the public.” 729 F.2d at 52. After trial, the public is
permitted to observe post-trial hearings investigating
jury misconduct. See United States v. Simone, 14 F.3d
833, 839 (3d Cir. 1994).

This jurisprudence reflects the centrality of non-
jury, non-trial proceedings in today’s federal courts. In
2016, 76,891 criminal defendants had their cases dis-
posed of in U.S. district courts; 161 defendants were

13

convicted by bench trials, and 66 acquitted; 1,510 de-
fendants were convicted by juries, and 203 acquitted.
See U.S. Courts, U.S. District Courts—Criminal De-
fendants Terminated, by Type of Disposition and Of-
fense—During the 12-Month Period Ending December
31, 2016, STATISTICAL TABLES FOR THE FEDERAL JUDI-
CIARY D-4 at 1, http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/de-
fault/files/data_tables/stf}_d4_1231.2016.pdf. The to-
tal number of trials—bench and jury—represented 2.5
percent of the dispositions. Jd.

Of course, the public’s right of access to court pro-
ceedings is not unlimited. But any restriction on that
right must be justified by an individualized analysis—
against a baseline presumption that the public must
be allowed to be present. Under the First Amendment
framework, denial of the public’s right of access must
be necessitated by a compelling governmental interest,
and such denial must be narrowly tailored to serve
that interest. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court
for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982). The Sixth
Amendment standard is similar: The party that seeks
“to close the hearing must advance an overriding in-
terest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must
be no broader than necessary to protect that interest,
the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives
to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings
adequate to support the closure.” Waller, 467 U.S. at
48.

14

B. Judges Have Constitutional and Com-
mon Law Obligations to Regulate Court-
house and Courtroom Conduct to En-
sure Criminal Defendants’ Rights to Due
Process and Article III Values of Judicial
Impartiality.

Preserving the dignity and decorum of the judicial
process sometimes requires judges to take measures
to police conduct. “Newspapers and the streets outside
are open to scathing criticism of what happens within
the courthouse . . . . But the halls of justice may be
kept hushed.” Sefick v. Gardner, 164 F.3d 370, 373
(7th Cir. 1998).

Indeed, the special status of the courthouse ex-
tends beyond its front door. In Cox v. Louisiana this
Court explained that “it is of the utmost importance
that the administration of justice be absolutely fair
and orderly” given that “the unhindered and untram-
meled functioning of our courts is part of the very
foundation of our constitutional democracy.” 379 U.S.
559, 562, 564 (1965). In that case, the Court upheld an
ordinance prohibiting picketing near a courthouse. /d.
at 562; see also, e.g., Hodge v. Talkin, 799 F.3d 1145,
1150 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (upholding prohibition against
assemblage and display of signs on Supreme Court
grounds in light of “the government’s long-recognized
interests in preserving decorum in the area of a court-
house and in assuring the appearance (and actuality)
of a judiciary uninfluenced by public opinion and pres-
sure”). Courthouse lobbies are likewise special places,
where rules of conduct are enforced. “Courts seek to
induce in the jurors, witnesses, and litigants who pass
through the lobby on the way to the courtrooms a se-
rious cast of mind.” Sefick, 164 F.3d at 373.

15

The courtroom is “the heart and soul of the court-
house.” Douglas P. Woodlock, Drawing Meaning from
the Heart of the Courthouse, in CELEBRATING THE
COURTHOUSE, supra, at 155, 167. And judges are at
the helm, ensuring that behavior befits the solemnity
of the judicial process. After all, “the ‘very purpose of
a court system .. . [is] to adjudicate controversies, both
criminal and civil, in the calmness and solemnity of
the courtroom according to legal procedures.” Shep-
pard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 350—51 (1966) (quoting
Cox, 379 U.S. at 583).

To that end, as the Code of Conduct for United
States Judges explains, federal judges “should main-
tain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.”
Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, Canon 3 (A)(2),
http://www.uscourts. gov/sites/default/files/vol02a-
ch02_0.pdf. The obligation to protect courtroom deco-
rum applies to judges and magistrate judges alike. See,
e.g., Baer v. Salt Lake City Corp., 705 F. App’x 727,
732 (10th Cir. 2017). That decorum in turn helps to
“maintain public trust and confidence in the courts
and the rule of law, generally.” Jona Goldschmidt,
“Order in the Court!” Constitutional Issues in the Law
of Courtroom Decorum, 31 HAMLINE L. REV. 1, 9 (2008).
Appellate courts likewise are required to ensure deco-
rum, making it proper in cases such as this to exercise
supervisory mandamus authority.

In individual cases, judges have used contempt
sanctions to preserve “judicial serenity and calm,”
Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 355. Conduct of individuals—
whether litigants, lawyers, witnesses, court personnel,
jurors, or members of the audience—can be the

16

grounds for contempt. Both district judges and magis-
trate judges have authority to impose contempt sanc-
tions. See 18 U.S.C. § 401; 28 U.S.C. § 636(e).

When judges perceive a threat to the public’s ex-
perience of courtroom justice, individualized assess-
ments are made in order to preserve the dignity and
decorum of the courtroom. For example, in United
States v. Abascal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a con-
tempt conviction where the appellant refused to step
forward and remained slouched in his chair while the
court addressed him. 509 F.2d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1975).
The “ability of a trial judge to compel obedience to his
orders,” the court noted, “is fundamental to the proper
functioning of our system of justice.” Jd. Individuals’
refusal to stand when judges leave or enter court-
rooms has likewise drawn sanctions. U.S. ex rel. Rob-
son v. Malone, 412 F.2d 848 (7th Cir. 1969).

Other kinds of conduct have also prompted the
imposition of contempt sanctions. In State v. Pelletier,
for example, the court noticed a vulgar phrase on the
back of a criminal defendant’s t-shirt only after the
conclusion of arraignment proceedings. 786 A.2d 609,
610—11 (Me. 2001). The judge emphasized the many
spectators who must have seen the vulgar language
and judged him to be in contempt. Jd. In Nestel v. Mo-
ran, the court affirmed a contempt conviction where
protestors stood and turned their backs to the judge
during sentencing. 513 A.2d 27, 29 (R.I. 1986). And in
United States v. Peoples, the court upheld a contempt
conviction for vulgar language that was directed at a
judge. See 698 F.3d 185, 190 (4th Cir. 2012).

17

C. Participants Must Respect the Unique
Environment of Courtrooms, and the De-
sign of Courtrooms Makes Manifest the
Public’s Important Role in the Admin-
istration of Justice.

Core Article II] and due process values govern
what happens inside courtrooms to ensure that judges
are impartial, that every party is treated with respect,
and that the judicial process proceeds in a solemn and
respectful manner. The key element is not the pres-
ence of jurors but the preservation of the meaning of
the courtroom, which “is the home of the law.” Breyer,
Foreword to CELEBRATING THE COURTHOUSE, supra, at
11.

Longstanding tradition, current custom, and this
Court’s jurisprudence confirm that what a judicial
proceeding looks like matters. Justice must appear
fair, and justice must be fair. From the details of the
dress of the participants to the way in which individ-
uals comport themselves, the presence of U.S. Mar-
shals and of the U.S. flag to the protection of the build-
ings and sidewalks of courthouses, the law makes
plain the importance of what transpires inside court-
rooms. Presenting all defendants in shackles violates
this fabric of both doctrine and rules.

That courtrooms are regulated spaces is a famil-
iar precept in this Court. In the late 1890s, future sen-
ator George Wharton Pepper arrived to argue wearing
a grey coat. The Court refused to let him enter until
he borrowed a more formal morning coat. The Court
and Its Traditions, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/tradi-
tions.aspx (last visited Feb. 26, 2018).

18

Although morning coats are no longer the meas-
ure of respectful attire, the dress of individuals con-
tinues to reflect the significance of what transpires.”
In this Court, “[s])unglasses, identification tags (other
than military), display buttons, and inappropriate
clothing may not be worn in the Courtroom when
Court is in session.” FAQs—Visiting the Court, Su.
PREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, https://www.su-
premecourt.gov/about/faq_visiting.aspx (last visited
Feb. 26, 2018). The grounds of this Court are likewise
protected from inappropriate activities. See e.g., 40
U.S.C. § 6135 (preventing the display of “a flag, ban-
ner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public
notice a party, organization, or movement” in the Su-
preme Court’s building or grounds).

Judges, of course, take care to dress in a way that
preserves the dignity and decorum of the courtroom. *
The robes that judges don when presiding before the
public signify their special role in American life and
help mark the space of a courtroom as unique. Other
court personnel—including bailiffs and marshals—
likewise dress in a manner that befits the solemnity
of the judicial process. These standards communicate
to the public the gravity of the proceedings.

2 Less than ten years ago, it made news when Justice Ka-
gan, while serving as Solicitor General, appeared before the
Court in a dark suit rather than in a morning coat. Al Kamen,
In the Loop, Wash. Post, Sept. 11, 2009, http://www.washing-
tonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti-
cle/2009/09/ 10/AR200909 1004250. htm!?sub=AR (last visited
Feb. 26, 2018).

3 In some jurisdictions, the custom of judicial robes is codi-
fied in formal rules. See , e.g., Circuit Court of Illinois, Eighth
Judicial Circuit, Uniform Rules of Practice 1.11(a).

19

Both the participants in and the observers of judi-
cial proceedings must stand when judges enter the
room and must dress in a manner that befits the dig-
nity of the courtroom. As Justice Souter explained,
judges have an “affirmative obligation to control the
courtroom and keep it free of improper influence.”
Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 82 (2006) (Souter, J.,
concurring). Consistent with that obligation, Justice
Souter concluded, “allowing spectators at a criminal
trial to wear visible buttons with the victim’s photo
can raise a risk of improper considerations.” Jd. In-
deed, courts around the country commonly prohibit
clothing that is provocative.* Court dress codes ban
tank tops; shorts; baggy pants; hats not worn for reli-
gious purposes”;® “heavily soiled work clothing”;® and
“theatrical costumes.” ’ Rules also direct the dress of
jurors; for example, the District of Columbia Courts

4 Code of Conduct for the Public, D.C. CouRTS,
https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/divisionspdfs/Public-
Code-of-Conduct.pdf (last visited Feb. 26, 2018).

5 Courtroom Etiquette and Attire, WASHTENAW CTY. TRIAL
CT., http://washtenawtrialcourt.org/general/courtroom_eti-
quette-attire (Michigan trial court); see also Canon City Munici-
pal Court, Courtroom Dress and Attire, available at
http://www.canoncity.org/departments/courtroom_etiquette.php
(Colorado municipal court) (last visited Feb. 26, 2018).

6 Municipal Court Dress Code, LEE’S SUMMIT, MO.,
http://cityofls.net/Municipal-Court/Court-Process/Dress-Code
(last visited Feb. 26, 2018).

7 Id.

20

expect jurors to respect “the formality of the court pro-
ceedings” by avoiding jeans, t-shirts, shorts, athletic
wear, and hats.®

When inappropriate attire undermines the integ-
rity of a judicial proceeding, courts have concluded
that outcomes cannot stand. In Norris v. Risley, for
example, the Ninth Circuit reversed a conviction for
kidnapping and sexual assault when spectators wore
“Women Against Rape” buttons during trial. 918 F.2d
828, 832-34 (9th Cir. 1990). Similarly, in Woods v.
Dugger, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a conviction for
murder of a prison staff member in part because, at
trial, members of the public appeared in the uniform
used by prison staff. 923 F.2d 1454 (11th Cir. 1991);
see also State v. Franklin, 327 S.E.2d 449, 454—55 (W.
Va. 1985) (reversing a conviction related to driving
under the influence of alcohol because audience mem-
bers wore Mothers Against Drunk Driving buttons
during the trial); People v. Pennisi, 563 N.Y.S.2d 612,
616 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1990) (prohibiting a victim’s family
and supporters from wearing corsages during crimi-
nal trial, finding that doing so could “constitute con-
duct disruptive of a courtroom environment, which en-
vironment must be scrupulously dedicated to the ap-
pearance as well as the reality of fairness and equal
treatment”).

Courts have also recognized that religious garb
may, in some circumstances, undermine the neutral-
ity of judicial proceedings. In La Rocca v. Lane, for ex-
ample, the New York courts held that an attorney's

8 Jury Frequently Asked Questions, D.C. COURTS,
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/jury-FAQ.pdf (last
visited Feb 26, 2018).

21

religious right to wear a clerical collar was outweighed
by the need to ensure a fair trial. 338 N.E.2d 606, 613
(N.Y. Ct. App. 1975). A fair trial, the court emphasized,
“includes the atmosphere and the appearance of a fair
trial.” La Rocca v. Lane, 366 N.Y.S.2d 456, 464
(N.Y.A.D. 1975). In this and other cases, “courts have
expressed a concern for the potential prejudice that
might result if an attorney or witness is allowed to
dress in religious garb.” Samuel J. Levine, Religious
Symbols and Religious Garb in the Courtroom: Per-
sonal Values and Public Judgments, 66 FORDHAM L.
REV. 1505, 1524 (1998).

Concern for the dignity and decorum of court-
rooms—and respect for Article II] values reflected
therein—is not limited to times when judges preside
at jury trials. In Bank v. Katz, for example, a lawyer
filed a federal lawsuit insisting that he had a First
Amendment right to wear jeans and a baseball hat in
the courtrooms of New York State. No. 08-CV-1033,
2009 WL 3077147, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2009).
The court rejected that First Amendment claim and
held that the state’s restriction was “reasonably re-
lated to the maintenance of courtroom civility and re-
spect for the judicial process.” Jd at *2. The state
judge’s enforcement reflected its “obligation to main-
tain the dignity of judicial proceedings and to oversee
courtrooms in a manner that promotes their integrity.”
Id.

Security is of course part and parcel of the dignity
of courtrooms. The case law reflects that deciding
whether restraints are needed requires scrutiny of
specific circumstances. For example, when consider-
ing whether criminal defendants can be required to

22

wear stun belts during proceedings, judges have re-
peatedly insisted on individualized assessments of
dangerousness, whether or not the garb is visible to
jurors. See, e.g., United States v. Durham, 287 F.3d
1297, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002); People v. Buchanan, 912
N.E.2d 553, 554 (N.Y. 2009). Whether visible or not,
“stun belts plainly pose . . . a serious threat to the dig-
nity and decorum of the courtroom.” Durham, 287
F.3d at 1306.

These individual decisions take place against the
backdrop of national efforts to secure the safety of
courtrooms. The General Services Administration has
guidelines on the zones within courthouse areas re-
quiring different levels of security. See U.S. GEN.
SERVS. ADMIN., THE SITE SECURITY DESIGN GUIDE at
21-25 (2007), https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
GSA_Chapter_Two_8-8-07.pdf. The Judicial Confer-
ence of the United States has a committee on Judicial
Security, distinct from its Committee on Space and
Facilities, and dedicated to developing policy protect-
ing safety. Judicial Conference of the United States:
Committees (Chronological), FED. JUD. CTR.,
https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/judicial-
conference-united-states-committees-chronological
(last visited Feb. 26, 2018).

The decisionmaking processes of the Judicial Con-
ference’s Security Committee reflect the need for de-
liberation and collaboration to ensure balancing of the
needs of all courthouse users. For example, in the con-
text of developing guidelines on the use of cell phones
in courthouses, the Conference explained, “[c]ourt se-
curity committees, which may include federal defend-
ers and the panel attorney district representative, are
well suited” to shaping appropriate rules. JUDICIAL

23

CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Portable Com-
munication Devices in the Courthouse 4 (2017),
http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/porta-
ble_comm_devices_policy.3.12.17.pdf. Likewise, study
was required before deciding whether court and cham-
ber personne! should pass through metal detectors be-
fore entering court spaces. See JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED STATES, Report of the Proceedings of
the Judicial Conference of the United States 21 (2013),
http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2013-
03.pdf.

The national policies on security in courthouses
are a subset of a broader set of decisions by the judici-
ary about courthouse design. In Justice Kennedy's
words, federal courthouses “are a tangible, palpable,
visible, clear manifestation of our commitment to the
Rule of Law.” Financial Services and General Govern-
ment Appropriations for 2016: Hearing Before the
Subcomm. on Fin. Servs., 114th Cong. 109 (2015).

The U.S. Supreme Court building, completed in
1935, is an iconic exemplar. “Seventy-five years later,
the Supreme Court’s majestic building stands out as
a familiar and iconic monument to the rule of law. The
architect’s use of classical elements and durable stone
has aptly captured the Court’s imperishable role in
our system of government.” Chief Justice John G. Rob-
erts, 2010 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,
at 1, https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-
end/2010year-endreport. pdf.

Since Chief Justice Rehnquist recognized the
critical need for courthouse construction in the 1980s,
the federal judiciary has taken a leadership role in en-
suring that courthouses make clear to the public our
constitutional commitment to the rule of law. Doing

24

so entailed ensuring an architecture appropriate for
federal courts, in which courtroom layout is central.
See U.S. GEN. SERVS. ADMIN, 2 VISION + VOICE: CHANG-
ING THE COURSE OF FEDERAL ARCHITECTURE, 5—7
(2004); VISION + VOICE: DESIGN EXCELLENCE IN FED.-
ERAL ARCHITECTURE: BUILDING A LEGACY 33 (2002).

As the 2007 U.S. Courts Design Guide instructs,
the “architecture of federal courthouses must promote
respect for the tradition and purpose of the American
judicial process. To this end, a courthouse . . . must
express solemnity, integrity, rigor, and fairness... .
to frame, facilitate, and mediate the encounter be-
tween the citizen and the justice system.” JUDICIAL
CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. COURTS DE-
SIGN GUIDE 3-1 (2007).

Courtrooms must provide the public with insights
into the “dignity of the judicial system.” JUDICIAL CON-
FERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. COURTS DESIGN
GUIDE 91 (1991). Doing so requires ample seating for
the public. The 2007 Guide provided specifications for
district judge and magistrate judge courtrooms. See
2007 U.S. COURTS DESIGN GUIDE, supra, at 4-15, 24.
Because “[t]he right to a public trial necessitates a cer-
tain volume of general public,” the design guide in-
structed that seating should be available for sixty-five
to eighty-five people in a district judge’s courtroom. /d.
at 4-13.

The San Diego courthouses where Respondents
were shackled exemplify the public commitment to en-
suring the dignity of courthouses and courtrooms. See
U.S. GEN. SERVS. ADMIN., James M. Carter and Judith
N. Keep US Courthouse, https://www.gsa.gov/about-
us/regions/welcome-to-the-pacific-rim-region-9/build-

25

ings-and-facilities/california/james-m-carter-and-ju-
dith-n-keep-us-courthouse. The care taken in the con-
struction of San Diego’s federal district courthouse is
not unusual. Another example is the John Joseph
Moakley Courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts. Each
of the courtrooms is decorated with four rounded
arches, symbolizing that the disputants, the judge,
and the public are each equally important to the legal
process. That design “gives appropriate recognition to
each player in the judicial process.” U.S. GEN. SERVS.
ADMIN, JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY U.S. COURTHOUSE AND
HARBOR PARK 8 (2003).

III. Blanket Five-Point Shackling Is Incompati-
ble with Criminal Defendants’ Due Process
Rights and with the Public’s Interest in Ob-
serving Dignified Courtroom Processes Re-
flecting Those Constitutional Commitments.

As Amici have recounted, the Constitution re-
quires courtrooms to be open to the public, which
plays a critical role in the processes of generating le-
gitimacy for the criminal justice system. We devote
significant resources to building and maintaining
courthouses because they embody a profound commit-
ment to equal justice under law.

The layers of regulations of courtrooms rightfully
reflect that what people wear and how they move
weave the fabric of our legal system. To prevent a law-
yer, a juror, or a spectator from wearing a badge or a
t-shirt but to mandate that all criminal defendants
wear chains is to undermine the individual treatment
of all persons in courts, which the Constitution pro-

tects.

26

Criminal defendants have a right to be present at
any stage of the proceeding that is “critical to its out-
come if his presence would contribute to the fairness
of the procedure.” Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730,
745 (1987). But under the policy in the Southern Dis-
trict of California, defendants were forced either to
stay out of court or to enter the halls of justice in five-
point shackles—with no individualized assessment.

Shackles have a long history of marking the per-
son bound as dangerous, as threatening, as violent,
and, historically, as subjugated to others and enslaved.
To require criminal defendants to walk into court by
shuffling into that hall of justice with arms and legs
bound, arms chained to waist, is to undermine the
commitment that all persons enter with dignity.
Judges, lawyers, staff, and the public who see a shack-
led detainee observe someone set apart and physically
marked as other—and as lesser. Forcing all criminal
defendants who appear for court proceedings into five-
point shackles thus undermines the public’s under-
standing that courtrooms treat all persons as individ-
uals and respect the presumption of innocence. Blan-
ket shackling breaches the delineation between the
courtroom and the holding cells or detention centers
from which defendants are brought.

Even as this case raises the question for the first
time before this Court in the context of pre-trial pro-
ceedings, the common law has long recognized the
damage that indiscriminate shackling does to the le-
gitimacy of criminal justice and its public perception.
Citing Bracton, Magna Carta, Virgil, and the Books of
Luke and John, Coke wrote: “[Ajll the said ancient au-
thors are against any pain, or torment to be put or in-
flicted upon the prisoner before attainder, nor after

27

attainder, but according to the judgement.” 3 E. Coke,
Institutes of the Laws of England 34 (1797); see also
Joan M. Krauskopf, Physical Restraint of the Defend-
ant in the Courtroom, 15 St. Louis U.L. J. 351, 351—
53 (1971). And history followed suit: As the Ninth Cir-
cuit en banc opinion chronicled, the longstanding rule
in England and the United States requires an individ-
ualized determination before a defendant may be
shackled in both jury and non-jury proceedings.

By stigmatizing all defendants, the government
undercuts the legitimacy of the process for both the
defendants and the viewing public. See Tom R. Tyler,
Does the American Public Accept the Rule of Law? The
Findings of Psychological Research on Deference to
Authority, 56 DEPAUL L. REV. 661, 664—65 (2007);
Tom R. Tyler, WHY PEOPLE OBEY THE LAW (2d ed.
2006). Shackling defendants may also cause judges—
despite their best efforts—to see shackled detainees
as dangerous and likely guilty. See, e.g., People v. Best,
979 N.E.2d 1187, 1189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012) (holding
that the trial court erred by allowing a defendant, who
had not been subjected to an individualized assess-
ment, to appear at a bench trial in shackles).

A literature on implicit bias focuses on associa-
tional stereotyping—linking, for example, age with in-
firmity. See generally Kristin A. Lane, Jerry Kang &
Mahzarin R. Banaji, Implicit Social Cognition and
Law, ANN. REV. L & Soc. SCl., 3, 427-51 (2007). But
here the problem is not implicit bias but explicit label-
ing by the government of all criminal defendants as
dangerous risks.

Amici are keenly aware of the importance of pro-
tecting every person in court proceedings. Doing so re-
quires a cooperative effort among all participants that

28

is consistent with constitutional obligations. This
Court announced how to balance security concerns
and defendants’ rights in the context of defendants ap-
pearing in shackles before juries. This Court con-
cluded that individualized assessments of dangerous-
ness can accomplish security goals without giving
courtrooms the ambiance of detention centers. See
Deck, 544 U.S. at 630.

A parallel principle is reflected in the law govern-
ing the public’s right to be present in courtrooms,
which is also not absolute. See Press-Enter. Co., 464
U.S. at 509. Closing courtrooms can take place, but
only based on evaluations in specific contexts and
then with as narrowly tailored a limit on public access
as possible.

Blanket five-point shackling, in contrast, de-
prived criminal defendants in San Diego of their con-
stitutional rights by undermining their individuality
and marking them all as dangerous. No less than at
trial or sentencing, indiscriminate shackling at pre-
trial stages communicates to the public that criminal
defendants are not truly individuals in the eyes of the
law. Accordingly, the integrity of our judicial system
requires that shackling—at any stage of proceed-
ings—be allowed only if individual circumstances
show a need based on a risk of violence or escape.

V. Given the Centrality of this Issue to Ameri-
can Justice, Appellate Review Was War-
ranted Here.

This case is at the heart of American justice, as its
outcome will decide what American courtrooms look
like. If no appellate review can be had, district courts
may indiscriminately shackle defendants with no

29

oversight. A never-ending parade of defendants ap-
pearing in five-point shackles for nearly every court
proceeding is anathema to the due process rights of
defendants and to the dignity and decorum that are
bedrock principles in American judicial proceedings.

Thus, this case meets the test of “importance” that
is central to the collateral order doctrine, see Cohen,
337 U.S. at 546, and presents the “exceptional circum-
stances” required to exercise supervisory mandamus,
Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380. To be decided is whether
criminal defendants are treated as individuals and
what the public sees and learns about American crim-
inal justice by watching courtroom processes.

The harm to the public happens at the moment a
defendant shuffles into court in shackles. That image
of American criminal justice cannot be remedied at
some later date, and it is not rendered moot by com-
pletion of any individual criminal proceeding. Imme-
diate appellate review—through either the “collateral
order” or “supervisory mandamus” framework—is
therefore essential to preserving criminal defendants’
rights and the dignity and decorum of the American
judicial process.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, as well as those given
by Respondents and in the decisions below, the judg-
ment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.

30

FEBRUARY 28, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

JUDITH RESNIK MEIR FEDER
127 Wall St. Counsel of Record
New Haven, CT 06511 JONES DAY

250 Vesey St.
STEPHEN I. VLADECK New York, NY 10281
727 E. Dean Keeton St. (212) 326-3939
Austin, TX 78705 mfeder@jonesday.com

SARAH L. LEVINE
JONES DAY

51 Louisiana Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001

AMANDA K. RICE
JONES DAY

150 W. Jefferson Ave.
Suite 2100

Detroit, MI 48226

CHRISTINA N. LINDBERG
ELI M. TEMKIN
ADRIENNE L. KAUFMAN
JONES DAY

90 S. 7th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402

Counsel for Amici Curiae

APPENDIX—-LIST OF AMICI CURIAE*

Mahzarin R. Banaji

Richard Clarke Cabot Professor of Social Ethics

Harvard College Professor

Chair, Department of Psychology, Harvard
University

Rosemary Barkett

Retired Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh
Circuit

Former Justice, Florida Supreme Court

David H. Coar

Retired Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District
of linois

Former Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois

Fernande R.V. Duffly
Retired Associate Justice, Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court

James Forman, Jr.
Professor of Law, Yale Law School

Royal Furgeson

Retired Judge, U.S. District Court, Western and
Northern Districts of Texas

Dean, UNT Dallas College of Law

* Institutional affiliations are listed solely for purposes of
identification and do not indicate institutional support for the
positions articulated in this brief.

Nancy Gertner

Retired Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Massa-
chusetts

Senior Lecturer, Harvard Law School

John Gleeson

Former Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District
of New York

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chief, Criminal Di-
vision, Eastern District of New York

Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

Rory K. Little

Joseph W. Cotchett Professor of Law, U.C. Hastings
College of the Law, San Francisco

Former Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. De-
partment of Justice

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chief, Appellate
Section, Northern District of California

Former Trial Attorney, Organized Crime & Racket-
eering Strike Force, U.S. Department of Justice,
San Francisco

Toni M. Massaro
Milton O. Riepe Chair in Constitutional Law, Uni-
versity of Arizona

Mary B. McCord

Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, National
Security Division, U.S. Department of Justice

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia

3

Senior Litigator from Practice and Visiting Professor
of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, In-
stitute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protec-
tion

Lauren Ouziel

Assistant Professor of Law, Temple University
James E. Beasley School of Law

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of
New York and Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Judith Resnik
Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School

Stephen C. Robinson

Former Judge, U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York

Former U.S. Attorney, District of Connecticut

Partner, Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom LLP

Shira A. Scheindlin

Retired Judge, U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York

Of Counsel, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP

Randall T. Shepard
Retired Chief Justice, Indiana Supreme Court

Norman W. Spaulding
Sweitzer Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

E. Thomas Sullivan
Former Dean, University of Minnesota Law School
Former Dean, University of Arizona College of Law

Robert S. Taylor
Former Principal Deputy General Counsel, U.S.
Department of Defense

Tom R. Tyler
Macklin Fleming Professor of Law and Professor of
Psychology, Yale University

Stephen I. Viadeck
A. Dalton Cross Professor in Law, University of
Texas School of Law

Patricia M. Wald
Retired Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0778%3A11. Public record. Not legal advice.