Whether appellate courts should review a judge's order declining to recuse de novo or for abuse of discretion and whether mandamus review requires two layers of deference

Petitioner James Dondero was the founder and presi-dent of a hedge fund, Highland Capital Management, L.P . In 2019, he entered Highland into a Chapter 11 bank-ruptcy reorganization. While presiding over Highland’s bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy judge wrote and pub-lished two novels—He Watches All My Paths and Hedg-ing Death—that pit a heroic bankruptcy judge against a nefarious hedge-fund manager bearing striking similari-ties to Mr. Dondero. Mr. Dondero moved for recusal but the bankruptcy judge denied the motion. He then sought review through mandamus. The Fifth Circuit acknowledged that “a strong argument could be made that she had a duty to recuse” on account of the books. App. 17a. But the Fifth Circuit held that the bankruptcy judge’s recusal declina-tion was shielded by two overlapping layers of appellate deference. It could be overturned only if the bankruptcy judge abused her discretion by denying recusal, and if Mr. Dondero made a “clear and indisputable” showing of that abuse. The Fifth Circuit’s holding directly conflicts with the Seventh Circuit, which reviews orders denying recusal de novo, even when presented on mandamus. The Fifth Cir-cuit’s approach also conflicts with the Third Circuit, which equates the “clear and indisputable” showing require-ment with the abuse-of-discretion standard of review when evaluating recusal decisions on mandamus, rather than applying the Fifth Circuit’s double dose of deference. The questions presented are: 1. Should a judge’s order declining to recuse be reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion? (ii) 2. When a litigant seeks review of a decision not to recuse through mandamus, should appellate courts require him to apply two layers of defer-ence to that decision and show that it was both an abuse of discretion and that the abuse was “clear and indisputable?” (iii)