Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings to such an extent as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power when the court of appeals failed to provide a remedy or a disclosure regarding an apparent violation of the federal judicial disqualification statute regarding a judge who was a member of an appeals panel in a case where the Department of Justice was a defendant while that judge was a candidate under consideration for the nomination to be Attorney General of the United States?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Depart from the Accepted and Usual Course of Judicial Proceedings to Such an Extent as to Call for an Exercise of this Court's Supervisory Power When the Court of Appeals Failed to Provide a Remedy or a Disclosure Regarding an Apparent Violation of the Federal Judicial Disqualification Statute Regarding a Judge Who Was a Member of an Appeals Panel in a Case where the Department of Justice was a Defendant While that Judge Was a Candidate Under Consideration for the Nomination to be Attorney General of the United States? B. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Err in Deciding the Proper Role of Legislative History in Determining Congressional Intent in a Manner that Conflicts with Decisions of the Supreme Court on this Important Question When the District Court Concluded that an Appropriations Act, which Provided Substantial Funding for the FBI to Conduct an Independent Assessment of Evidence Related to the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, Did Not Require the FBI to Report or Disclose Any Information Resulting from this Assessment to Anyone, Including to Congress, Notwithstanding Unambiguous and Authoritative Legislative History to the Contrary? C. — Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Err in Interpreting the Requirements for Article III Standing in a Manner that Is in Conflict with Decisions of the Supreme Court on this Important Question When It Denied Standing to a Father Who Lost His Son in the 9/11 Attacks, and to Two Non-Profit Organizations Asserting Informational and Organizational Standing, the Missions of which Are Focused on 9/11 Transparency and Government Accountability? 2