A member of the federal judiciary failed to recuse himself from a case after discovering that the actions of his spouse created an interest in one of the litigants in that case. A new opinion has reversed that failure to recuse, holding that vacatur of all subsequent rulings must follow “perhaps most significantly” because letting stand any rulings made after the interest become known would risk “undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process”. Here, the interest arose from the spouse’s purchase of roughly $5K in Cisco stock, the subsequent vacatur wiping a multi-billion dollar judgment in favor of Centripetal Networks off the books.