In the case of United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 2017, four criminal defendants challenged a district-wide policy in the Southern District of California that required all pretrial detainees to be shackled at their feet during non-jury proceedings before a judge. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendants stating that such routine use of restraints was unconstitutional and violated their Fifth Amendment rights. However, when appealed to the Supreme Court by U.S government officials, it was overturned on grounds that it had become moot because none of those who brought up this challenge remained restrained or were still involved with any ongoing cases where they could potentially be restrained again. Therefore, according to SCOTUS' ruling delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., there wasn't an active controversy for them to resolve as per Article III's requirement for federal courts.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, Justice Breyer argued that the case was not moot because it fell under an exception to the mootness doctrine: cases capable of repetition yet evading review. He believed that this issue would likely reoccur and evade timely judicial review due to short criminal proceedings duration compared with longer appellate process timeframes. Therefore, he felt it necessary for courts to address these issues when they arise rather than dismissing them as moot. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of precedent regarding courtroom security measures' constitutionality, arguing instead that such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis by trial judges who are better equipped to assess specific circumstances and needs in their courtrooms.