MrMarc

They actually use Matlock clips in CLE as examples of how far from reality TV law shows are. From the timeline to procedure, they are so far from reality it get funny. But honestly, in this case everyone's opinion matters equally, because we have no idea what is actually going to happen.

I am probably going to get flamed for this, but I think the stay of the preliminary injunction will be granted. Since Florida has not shown that the CSO is harming the restart any more than their law regarding vaccinations, especially since everything I have seen shows that the overwhelming majority of possible cruise passengers would prefer 100% vaccinated cruises, which Florida itself is preventing. I think that the success of ships moved from US ports currently sailing show that. Everyone keeps saying that the spread model does not take into account the vaccine. First, if the ships are not allowed to ask people for proof of vaccination, they will have no idea of the percentage of the ships population are vaccinated, so a model would be impossible. Second, the study is being used to show that the possible spread on a ship is different from the other scenarios so any change in the percentage of spread taking the vaccine into account, whatever that is, would be higher on a ship than the other scenarios, not as a specific model of how the virus will spread on a particular ship. I also believe that their view of the scope of their authority is correct, despite the Judge's detailed history lesson. In fact, I see his ruling as inconsistent, they don't have the authority unless they use it in a way he agrees with? And I agree with the fact that congress has recognized the authority by adopting a law that relies on the CSO as part of the law. I have learned not to depend on predictions of what a Judge or Jury will decide, so this is not a prediction, just an opinion.

I still cannot see how a Federal Judge can rule that a Federal entity has exceded it's statutory authority and somehow limit that to a single State. Therefore I think if the injunction takes effect, it will apply to all States, whether they are a party to this suit or not. If that happens, I would guess that the cruise lines would use the recommendations of their own panel, to the extent allowed by State laws, getting around any issues as they are in Florida. However, I also don't think this Judge will want the far reaching consequences of making his temporary order permanent. I think he is doing whatever he can to get the parties to settle, but given the way Florida is digging it's heals in, I think the mediator has a difficult job.

That is really interesting, I wonder if that was an oversight or intentional. I also wonder if the Judge would remedy that on his own, in my experience mistakes like that are usually brought up and corrected at a hearing, which I assume there will be since it is a contested motion.

Personally, I think the cruise lines would basically follow them anyway, Because regardless of what happens in this case, they will still have to deal with the CDC on many other issues and still gives them some cover for enforcing rules because they are following the recommendations.

I love kids, however this is a discussion about vaccinated vs. unvacinated. I don't think the reason for not being vaccinated has any bearing on the question. If it does, then what about adults who cannot take it for medical reasons? The separation is for health reasons, not a punishment. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, fair or unfair. It just seems totally inconsistent if the reason a person is not vaccinated matters, then the entire purpose of the exercise becomes invalid.

It occurred to me today: what gives this Judge the authority to approve or disapprove any CSO based on his interpretation of the science behind it. If he is saying the CDC exceded it's statutory power by imposing a CSO, then how could they issue a new one only if a Judge who has no Statutory authority to issue health orders? Either the CDC has the authority or it doesn't. And the fact that he constructed his order in such a way that there is nothing appealable until his temporary injunction goes into effect seems to be delaying the inevitable.

Great point.

I agree, but it will take time to reconvene the panel and generate new recommendations. In any event, nothing is really going to be decided in the next 30 days unless Florida agrees to allow proof of vacation, which is the only way I can imagine the case settling. And then we have the appellate process, hopefully expidited.

But no one is going to like those.

Ok if, as many people, including this Judge (even of not directly) that there is no science behind masking and distancing, why does he point to it as reasons (along with vaccination) for the infection rate dropping and remaining low? It seems to me that the CDC could come up with a limited order that includes these elements that would be within the Judge's conditions. So everyone celebrating the cruise lines freedom to do whatever they want might want to wait a month or so. Even if the CDC totally drops this, which I think is highly unlikely, the cruise lines are going to have to come up with protocols on their own, making it more likely that there may be liability concerns despite waivers and releases, especially on previously booked cruises. So I think it may be possible that we end up with restrictions that no one likes. But at a minimum, if things were uncertain before, they are in total chaos right now.

Excellent summary! To me it was clearly written in anticipation of an appeal. I think he will do everything he can not to make a final ruling on this, because he is aware of how far reaching such a ruling could be. Everyone is concentrating on how this affect cruising. I think the implications go far beyond that. It seems to me that the CDC lawyers were not nearly as prepared as they should have been, perhaps overconfidence? It will be interesting to see what they bring this next time. Also, I do not know how he could be clearer that he wants Florida to allow cruise lines to ask for proof of vaccination, other than coming right out and saying it. That is the really the only issue they have to offer to reach a compromise.

The Judge may try to limit it to Florida, but he is ruling that the CDC overstepped it's authority, which would affect all states. If he had ruled for the CDC we would at least know what the rules were, no nobody has any idea.

To me, this may be why the cruise lines did not join the lawsuit in Florida. If Florida wins, they loose the protection of a Federal mandate that would overrule the State laws, and the loophole is closed. There are so many moving parts to this situation, no one knows or can predict what will happen tomorrow. But that isn't discouraging me or anyone else from having fun speculating online.

The law does specifically state it, look at (e)(1): Sec. 161.0085. COVID-19 VACCINE PASSPORTS PROHIBITED. (a) In this section, "COVID-19" means the 2019 novel coronavirus disease. (b) A governmental entity in this state may not issue a vaccine passport, vaccine pass, or other standardized documentation to certify an individual's COVID-19 vaccination status to a third party for a purpose other than health care or otherwise publish or share any individual's COVID-19 immunization record or similar health information for a purpose other than health care. (c) A business in this state may not require a customer to provide any documentation certifying the customer's COVID-19 vaccination or post-transmission recovery on entry to, to gain access to, or to receive service from the business. A business that fails to comply with this subsection is not eligible to receive a grant or enter into a contract payable with state funds. (d) Notwithstanding any other law, each appropriate state agency shall ensure that businesses in this state comply with Subsection (c) and may require compliance with that subsection as a condition for a license, permit, or other state authorization necessary for conducting business in this state. (e) This section may not be construed to: (1) restrict a business from implementing COVID-19 screening and infection control protocols in accordance with state and federal law to protect public health; or (2) interfere with an individual's right to access the individual's personal health information under federal law.

Local news is reporting that cruise lines CAN ask for proof of vaccination under the new Texas law: https://abc13.com/carnival-cruises-to-sail-out-of-galveston-travel-cruise-ships/10763339/

The title says it all

That has been explained so many times, but we have all become so intrenched in our own opinions, no one is listening anymore. I agree the real danger is how much focus will be put on even a single case on a ship, that even if it's handled well, it could begin a new shutdown. And even if the US doesn't shut it down, many ports may not allow the ships to visit. No one knows what is going to happen, but the requirement of the vaccine initially would be much safer. So even if you don't want to take the vaccine or disclose whether you have or not, letting it happen that way for a few months at least would probably be better for everyone in the long run.

Not to start a conspiracy theory, but I wonder if the cruise lines are not taking advantage of the "no test" cruises so as not to weaken this case, because if they were able to cruise under the existing rules, it would weaken the economic impact argument.

That's what thought they all would do, but then there is the State law complication. At least for 90 days, it wouldn't be an issue in Texas. Of course, I have a booking on another cruise line that shall remain nameless (it was way too good of a deal to pass up) in September, about 2 weeks after the law takes effect. I was trying to give myself more hope, until I realized I'm outside the 90 day window. But hopefully they will have figured something out by then.

I agree, I'm not trying to start the debate, but I thought the 90 day window could be interesting. Someone could do the no test cruises for a couple of months while they work through the test cruises.

The real problem may be that there is a bill similar to Florida's ban on requiring proof of vaccination not being allowed, and he is expected to sign it. Then we will have the same issues that Florida has. But the law will not be effective for 90 days, so it will be interesting to see if no test cruise cruises go out of Galveston in the meantime.

After reasearching it a bit, I'm going to change my mind and agree with you. There are many different definitions of "public transportation"

I really cannot see any argument that a cruise ship is private transportation. I don't think "public" means publicly owned, but means open to the public and would include Taxis, Uber and Lyft.

Whether any of us think the CDC has the power to mandate procedures on a ship or not, clearly the cruise lines do. So does the State of Florida.