I disagree with your claims (1) and (2):
(1) An appellate court (why are you apparently randomly capping this and other phrases?) would not be reluctant to reverse a lower court if the lower court decision is reviewed de novo. That ipso facto is what "de novo" is supposed to mean. I do not know whether the decision will be reviewed de novo, however, but I believe that this is what the appellants are requesting. Obviously, if a greater standard of deference applies, then the appellate court should give some deference to the lower court.
(2) Your claim about "Federal Court Judges" resenting time-wasting is inapplicable here. First of all, this is about appellate, not district court judges, whereas your claim relates irrelevantly to all of them. Second, this is obviously not a trivial case, either as a matter of law, of financial significance, or of public interest. The vast majority of the appellate caseload will be of far less legal interest or significance than this case; the overwhelming majority of the district court caseload is mindbogglingly dull and inconsequential compared to this.
