This is where it helps if you put something into your head before letting words come out.

Most “conflicts of interest” requiring recusal involve the judge being related to one of the parties or lawyers, or having a financial interest in the outcome of the case. Recusal issues are decided on an objective standard, not the subjective musings of message boarders. Recusals are exceedingly rare unless there is bias for or against an actual party to the case.

Ole Miss isn’t a party to this case. Sure, it has a derivative interest in the outcome, just as any rival of Ole Miss might also have. Many judges go to a law school different than where they go to law school. See where this is going?

My closest circle of friends in law school did their undergrad at MSU, Vandy, LSU, and Itawamba. One of those is a sitting federal judge and no one would ever suggest recusal of him on such flimsy grounds, if he were sitting on this case.

Off the top of my head I can think of only one case where a judge recused on account of where she went to law school. It was a case challenging Harvard undergraduate admissions, and Harvard College was a party. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself not because she had undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard, but because she has served on the Board of Overseers when the admissions policy was adopted. Two other justices with Harvard law degrees did not recuse. And Chief Justice Roberts also did not recuse even though he had gone to both Harvard Law and Harvard undergrad (Leverett House, IIRC).

There is no legal basis for recusal in this case. Get over it.