2001 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

§ 455(a)[2] required the disqualification of the trial court judge because his name had appeared, albeit erroneously, prior to his appointment to the bench, on a motion to file an amicus curiae brief in a similar suit against some of the same defendants.

The Supreme Court reversed, finding the Fifth Circuit's decision inconsistent with Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988), which stated that §455(a) requires judicial recusal "if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would expect that the judge would have actual knowledge" of his interest or bias in the case.

The Court characterized the Fifth Circuit's decision as based on what "a reasonable person would believe without knowing (or giving due weight to the fact) that the judge’s name was added mistakenly and without his knowledge to a pro forma motion to file an amicus brief in a separate controversy."

The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari following full briefing and oral argument, determining that the petitioners were the prevailing parties below, and sought review of findings that were not essential to the judgment and not binding upon them in future litigation.

The Court stated that "[a]s a general rule, a party may not appeal from a favorable judgment simply to obtain review of findings it deems erroneous."