Whether a standard of deference is appropriate when a reviewing opinion demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the case and potentially sidesteps Supreme Court precedent without justification

In August 2024, after inheriting a large case load from then-ascending Judge Maldonado, Judge Gettleman of the Northern Illinois District Court, after having no prior involvement, dismissed this case along with over half of the cases he inherited from Judge Maldonado. His dismissal, which, as he wrote, should've been a de novo review, largely parroted points from a magistrate ’s report and recommendations. Judge Gettleman ’s order contained hallucinated people, brandnew legal theories never before discussed, decisions based on precedent test outcomes instead of the logical tests themselves, logic that's dependent on time travel existing, and decisions solidifying a witness as psychic; all of which are highly indicative of gener ative Al. The Seventh Circuit, when reviewing the pleadings, opted to use a standard of deference in reviewing the case, and declined to rehear the case when the issues above were pointed out. The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether it is appropriate for a standard of deference to be applied when the reviewing opinion demonstrates a clear lack of familiarity with the case, and if it is, whether a Supreme Court precedent can be knowingly sidestepped and ignored by lower courts without justification? 2. Should the use of generative Al be used on the side of justice in the courts, and if so, what are the appropriate oversights, rules, and/or regulations that should be done to ensure justice is delivered by a human instead of an algorithm?