[Cboldt]

... are you inferring that the legislation does require a de novo review?

I believe it uses exactly those words. SHALL perform a de novo review. What is left discretionary (but was assumed to be a gimme, under the facts in hand), was the issuing of injunctive relief until such time as the evidence relating to the ultimate judicial order could be reviewed. Instead, the Federal Courts concluded, after something they called a de novo review, that they would have ruled the same way that Greer did, basically.

[InterceptPoint]

Instead, the Federal Courts concluded, after something they called a de novo review, that they would have ruled the same way that Greer did, basically.

That is amazing. A "We don't need no stinking de novo review" ruling. No new witness. No new testimony. A quick review by the staff and we're out of here.

But...it if you are right then they are just thumbing their noses at the law. But that's become the norm.

[Military family member]

So why didn't the Schindler's attorney take advantage of this point in the law? After reading Whittemore's ruling, it seems that even he was concerned about this.

I think the attorney failed, not the judge.