Does §455(b)(3) require recusal when a federal judge is assigned to a case involving the same parties, same facts, and same issues as a case in which they previously appeared as counsel for the government?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The federal disqualification statute, 28 U.S.C. §455, compels federal judges to recuse themselves “in any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Id. §455(a). That statute specifies that disqualification is “also” required if a judge, while previously serving in government, “participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” Id. §455(b)(8). 1. Does §455(b)(3) require recusal when a federal judge is assigned to a case involving the same parties, same facts, and same issues as a case in which they previously appeared as counsel for the government? 2. Does §455(b)(3) provide the exclusive basis for federal judges’ disqualification based upon their previous government service, as the D.C. Circuit holds, or is recusal still independently warranted under §455(a), where a judge’s previous government service gives rise to reasonable questions about their impartiality, as at least the First, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits hold?