JeffB

The bottom line is that Desantis would be committing political suicide if, after a separate and distinct injunction against the CDC's CSO allowing cruise lines to re-start revenue sailing, he were to tell them they can't require proof of vaccination to sail from FL ports. Think about this. Wrapping oneself around language that might tell us that he will or he won't enforce his "anti- vaccine passport rule" on the cruise lines is sheer folly. Not going to happen. Period. Full-stop.

Visualize it ....... how would you like to be a lawyer trying to defend the CDC's NSO and CSO? The NSO, given it's extent is unlawful. The CSO is laughable, unlawful and exceeds the authority of the CDS under U.S.C. 42. The only thing that will prevent the injunction is some kind of delay or technical issue, presented by the defendants, that the Judge hearing the case on Wednesday is required by the law to accept.

July 1st ..... after the CSO is enjoined by the federal court.

Well, all quiet on the CDC front, or so it would seem. I've not seen anything in the last 72h that suggests the needle has moved. It's stuck at high noon probably waiting for the Middle Court of FL, Judge Steven D. Merryday presiding, to hear FL's request for an injunction against the CDC's CSO. There's no telling what moves the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Intervenors (Texas & Alaska) and the defendant's attorneys (Bacerra and Walenski) will make. There will probably be motions of a technical basis put forward by the defendants but that they haven't already done so may signal they are ready to defend their authority to enforce the CSO. Here's a recap: The complaint was filed by the state of FL with the Federal Court having jurisdiction on April 8th Since then, there have been 35 separate filings. Things like summons, motions, addition of plaintiffs and such. Mostly technical things. The last on Friday, May 7th. There could be more before the Judge hears arguments next Wednesday. Some could be show stoppers that impose delays. There are different sets of rules for this sort of legal maneuvering when the plaintiff is granted an expedited hearing. The claim is filed under the category of Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision. This is important because the claim is less about the CDC's authority to regulate maritime shipping operations to protect the public health and more about the administrative procedures that the CDC should have followed and did not in implementing them and the unprecedented length of time the NSO/CSO have been enforced. The thrust of the claim involves the billions of dollars in economic losses suffered by the state of FL and businesses operating there in support of cruise ship operations. As part of the complaint, a through study of the costs to each FL port was undertaken, published and attached to the claim. The account is staggering. The claim then shifts to accountability for those losses (HHS/CDC) and that administrative procedures outlined in pertinent U.S.C. that were not followed when the NSO and CSO were issued. There are notifications that have to be made when the CDC wishes to act to carry out it's responsibilities to protect the public health from potential threats (disease) carried by maritime shipping (cruise ships) before actions are taken to give the ships/ports time to correct problems and make things safe. The claim is that cruise lines or port authorities were not notified before issuing the NSO or the CSO. Moreover, the extent of the CDC's authority to act under U.S.C. 42 is usually limited to single events and short time frames until the threat is resolved. The sweeping nature that has shut down an entire industry, in a discriminatory way, for over a year, far, far exceeds the intent of granting the CDC powers to protect the public health in the narrow setting of maritime shipping operations; it is further argued that only Congress has this level of authority granted to it in the Constitution. I know there are doubters here that the complaint will be resolved in FL's and by extension, the cruise industry's favor. The law is tricky and rarely straight forward to lay people like us. Unexpected things happen at hearings like this and that could very well be the case. But FL's complaint is strong and if it survives legal maneuvering on the part of the defendant's attorney's I think FL will get what it wants - an injunction against the CSO. A poster in this thread, I believe, wondered if the contents of the CSO won't end up in U.S.C 42, Maritime regulations. It might but not over-night. US Code rests on Congressional legislation. If the CSO is enjoined, that means a Judge has said current law doesn't allow it. Modifying the law is hard and time consuming.

......... the freight train is picking up steam and moving. The faster it goes the harder it is to stop it.

"Onwards and upwards team" ......what this says to me is that RCL is operationally planning for it's ships to sail, I'd guess in the first week in July. Del Rio's remarks last week were pure theater. I think the several posts made within this forum present solid legal arguments that Ron Desantis has no intention at all of telling the cruise lines that plan on sailing from FL's ports, you can't require passengers to be vaccinated. Now, that's not to say RCL, for example, will require passengers to be vaccinated like NCL has already decided it will mandate them. Vaccine requirement plans remain to be seen for the lines other than NCL. I think for all the lines, the two paths to return to cruising from US ports - test sailings to revenue sailings or straight to revenue sailings - that Bailey laid out is shaping their operational planning. If the court does not enjoin the CDC CSO, the back-up plan will be to do the best they can do given the CSO guidance hoping that dialogue will occur between the CDC and line executives along the way that brings the CSO up to date and makes protocols a bit more reasonable.

0_0, this link is somewhere else on these message boards but for your reading pleasure, here's the link to FL's filing in it's entirety. Incidentally, it was filed as an issue with Administrative Procedures that the federal courts have jurisdiction over and review. I don't think it could have been filed as a matter of questioning the CDC's authority to regulate sanitary conditions aboard vessels for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease within the US. The CDC clearly has that authority. http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/TDGT-BZVLFJ/$file/Fla+v+HHS+and+CDC+complaint.pdf

I don't think anyone, including FL's Attorney General, has questioned the authority of the CDC or HHS (in the person of the Surgeon General) to regulate sanitary conditions on board vessels making port calls in the US. The USCG is the enforcement arm for the myriad maritime rules and regulations that ships calling on US ports have to comply with. Upon arrival in a US port, the captain of the vessel must certify that his ship is in compliance with these rules and it is part of the authorization process that port authorities undertake when approving a vessel's request to make a port call. As well, the USCG conducts regular sanitation inspections that cruise ships routinely pass. None of this is new and the cruise lines have been in strict compliance with these regulations. Having said that, FL's claim is, in part, that the CDC does not have the authority to issue year-and-a-half-long nationwide lockdowns of entire industries based on the applicable laws and regulations detailed above. And even if it did, its actions here are arbitrary and capricious and otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). FL's claim against HHS and the CDC leans heavily on violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and less on questioning the CDC's authority to regulate sanitary conditions aboard vessels. The claim adds the following: (1) Irreparable (Economic) Harm (2) Failure to determine if the State of FL has or has not taken adequate steps to insure that tourists traveling from state to state are not spreading disease before they issued the NSO (affecting the state) and subsequently modified by the CSO. IOW, federal action is unlawful when such notice is not given in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. (3) CDC failed to give proper notice to the state of FL before imposition of the NSO and CSO as required by the Administrative Procedures Act. (4) Unconstitutional Exercise of Legislative Power. IMO, this is the strongest element of the claim and I quote it here: "72. If the Conditional Sailing Order does not exceed the authority under 42 U.S.C. § 264 and the relevant regulations, then Section 264 constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of lawmaking by the executive branch, affording the CDC the power to determine the rights of millions of citizens, to decide on the survival of countless businesses, and to make a host of sweeping policy decisions absent meaningful accountability." 0-0, I think you were spot on in the post you removed, not withstanding your subsequent removal of it citing 42 U.S.C. The element of the FL law suit I quoted above deals directly with that issue.

If the judge enjoins enforcement of the CSO (and all that entails), the preliminary injunction takes place immediately (there are varying rules and exceptions but basically immediately). I think it is correct to assume, it will take the cruise lines a while to digest the impact and implement an operational plan. However, if I have this right, the industry has probably been planning on this outcome for a while. Restart delays may be minimal. The case the FL's and TX State's Attorneys are making is solid. Twangster, I'm sure you've read the filing. I'm not a lawyer and don't think you are either so, we're both speculating. I was closely involved with a case brought by a private party seeking an injunction on the County of Miami Dade imposing certain regulations based on his powers under the state's PHE. The claimant believed the regulations were unlawful and a undue restraint of trade. Much smaller case but, the plaintiff requested and obtained an expedited hearing. The county backed down before the preliminary hearing by pretending to rescind the regulations because COVID circumstances had changed. They hadn't but the Mayor saved face. I don't think the HHS/CDC is going to back down before the hearing. Their lawyers will argue that the CDC has the power to regulate the cruise industry. They will argue cruises, by their nature, are high-risk environments for airborne and foodborne diseases and there is documented history of COVID super-spreader events on Princess cruise ships among others. Cruise ship staff and passengers travel to different ports and destinations. When they disembark or come back home, they can expose their family, friends, and the general public to Covid-19. Given the danger that cruises could pose, the CDC has clear powers to regulate to ensure the safety of the general public. It's a decent argument and the Judge may like it. As Wordell1 suggests the government may also argue for dismissal based on this being an international issue. The problem for HHS and the CDC is that the suit also claims irreparable economic damage to FL's and TX's cruise ports and larger economies tied to cruise ship operations. That part of the claim is national, not international. The entire scope and implications of the CSO, therefore, exceeds the statutory and regulatory authority of the CDC. The states are also arguing that the CDC's regulatory authority over maritime operations that might threaten public health applies to single, time limited events. That's not what the CSO is. It is an ongoing, lengthy restraint of trade imposing billions of dollars of economic losses that only Congress has the authority to pass this kind of regulatory legislation. Based on the foregoing, I think the claim has a better than average chance of having the Judge issue the injunction the claimant states are seeking. The risk is that their are technicalities beyond my understanding that may weigh on this case but, fundamentally, based on the arguments contained in the 5 elements of the claim, this is a strong case. It helps that the Judge, who has already reviewed the filings and arguments of both parties deems the claim worthy of being heard on an expedited basis.

Private vaccine requirements are legal. The position that vaccine passports infringe on personal liberties in private settings doesn't hold water. Every one of you have, at one time or another, been required to show proof of vaccination to go to school. It is important to distinguish between public and private settings. Federal mandates for them, as in a requirement for "vaccine passports", not in a private setting, would most likely not survive a court challenge on the basis that mandating them broadly and at the federal level would abridge constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. OTH, private businesses can legally require vaccination as a condition of employment. The EEOC has greenlighted vaccine requirements as long as appropriate exemptions that protect personal liberties and allow for disabilities are part of the requirement (e.g. religious or health related exemptions, tele-working). Governor Desantis' or any other state governor's EO based order banning "vaccine passports" isn't legal. State Governors do not have the power, even under those granted by declaration of a PHE. State legislatures appear to have the authority to legislate bans of vaccine passports within their boarders or requirements for them to obtain service in a place of business. There are gray areas, however. They involve several issues: First, the role of federal over-sight and the responsibility of the feds to provide guidance. Second, the EAU, third, the ethical challenge imposed by vaccine distribution inequity. IOW, such bans, even when codified into law by state legislatures are not going to survive court challenges. Even though there are some gray areas in the law governing state's right to legislate vaccine passport bans, it is clear that Desantis does not have legal authority to waive vaccine requirements that private cruise lines might wish to impose as a requirement for boarding a cruise ship. That is because Desantis runs afoul of federal oversight of cruise ships operating both in federally controlled waters bordering the states and in international waters. The bottom line for those worried about a vaccination requirement by the cruise lines becoming a show-stopper for cruises originating in FL ports is that won't happen. The CDC's power to regulate the cruise industry is another matter altogether. Some legal authorities say they do (the US Justice Department), some say they don't (e.g., the FL and TX State's attorneys). This question gets resolved next week.

People seeking to travel outside of the US in teh next 12 months or so are going to encounter a lot of uncertainty from the airlines, cruise lines and governments running the travel and leisure show inside their boarders. The best idea is to protect yourself from financial loss if something unexpected happens. Book refundable air fares or book your air with your cruise line of choice. Expect cruise itinerary changes and just enjoy the ride.

That take is possible. So are others with respect to the apparent stand the CDC has taken, namely publishing a laughable and seriously outdated phased return to cruising that clearly was staffed months ago, was pulled out of the cellar and dusted off just in time to send it's unobtainable, according to Del Rio, gates for a restart directly to the Judge that is hearing FL's lawsuit next week. Coincidence? I don't think so. They're feeling the heat.

I'm going to go with two possibilities here: (1) The CDC actually does have it's head up it's ass and will push for the phased restart as published. Mitigating against this line of thinking is that the thing is laughably outdated. Mitigating for it is that the CDC DOES have it's head up it's ass. (2) This is an industry smoke screen or a tacitly agreed upon one off- from Del Rio. Mitigating against this is the cruise industry rarely has one spokes person speaking for the collective. Mitigating for it is the line of thought that the industry knows the CSO's phased restart is going to crash and burn under it's own weight of stupid or a Judge is going to enjoin enforcement of it.

I'm going to add this as an extension to the line of thought above wrt HHS having it's backs against the wall. I'm advancing the thought that HHS/CDC had to put something out publicly demonstrating that they had a pathway to return to cruising. HHS/CDC were getting crushed from multiple directions. On a careful reading of that portion of the CSO, it's laughable. It's inconsistent with even their own recent guidance. One cannot take the thing seriously ...... and I don't think the cruise lines are taking it seriously. They have other plans. It's possible that the CDC has told the cruise lines that the public release of the phased return and all the outdated protocols that go along with it is window dressing. "We'll have an update soon," the CDC is telling the industry . Thus, the silence. If the cruise lines were actually going to apply to the CDC to conduct test cruises, I think we'd know about it. If specific ships were approved for test cruises, we'd be hearing about sign-ups for volunteers ....... cricketts. Suspicious - something is up that isn't public knowledge. What we're seeing instead is oodles of cruise ships making quick turns in FL and Texas ports. Vaccinations are getting done for crew members on these port stops. I suppose a hybrid start-up is possible - test cruises for some ships and "restricted" revenue sailings for others. But all signs are pointing toward global level sailings, including re-starts from US ports, with "reasonable (now proven) infection control measures" implemented by the cruise lines not directed by the US government via the CDC/HHS/DHS.

May 12th. I'm betting the cruise lines know that FL has a strong case and is hopefully standing by. If the hearing gets postponed (HHS just submitted thousands of pages of documents to the court demonstrating they have a plan via the CSO protocols) or the judge rules unfavorably on the FL claim, they'll get to work on dismantling the CSO to the extent they can.

Well, the judge may take these docs as prima facia evidence that the CDC has a plan and FL should just wait as it unfolds. I don't know if his clerks have the depth of knowledge about this to actually understand how outdated and absurd the restart protocols are and then impart that view to the judge. I suspect the claimant's legal team does. Hope they get a chance to argue that HHS is stalling and what they submitted is invalid.

I think it should be understood that when the CDC made the initial announcement publicly a few weeks ago and then provided more information publicly yesterday, the cruise lines/CLIA had advance information ahead of both announcements. I think it's also a good guess that the lines have been preparing for a restart well before the press got wind of the CDC's recent public airing of restart protocols. Having said that, I simply cannot imagine what RCL's & Celebrity's Operations Departments are dealing with trying to build into their operations the protocols the CDC is requiring. Or, maybe they're not. On careful reading, it's obvious that the CDC protocols just released were developed months ago and don't reflect current pandemic circumstances. I have to believe that operators at the cruise lines are in contact with counterparts at the CDC and are being updated in accordance with the CSO proviso that states protocols and guidelines will change based on evolving pandemic circumstances. What we know of the restart protocols just can't be right. They are laughable. I'll say this: I have no doubt that HHS knows it's back is up against the wall with respect to the potential that the CDC's CSO is going to be declared unlawful in less than a week. Throwing the stuff out there yesterday that they did, clearly dated and without regard to facts on the ground, was a move to convince the Federal judge that will be ruling on FL's request for an injunction that the CDC has a plan to get cruise lines going again .... but it has to be done safely. Never mind that the restart protocols contained in the CSO have no basis in the current science. The CDC may actually think that the Judge won't look at the CSO's details passing on that daunting task and just accepting that they have a plan. This is a classic bureauocratic legal maneuver. Throw thousands of pages of gobble-de-gook into the court's lap hoping the judge will delay the hearing to review the documents.

People! You are trying to understand and make sense of this CDC stuff? STOP. Pray for a favorable Judgement in State of FL v. HHS on May 12th. If that doesn't happen here is my plan: Volunteer for a "test cruise" as soon as I can do that. Quietly board as if I'm playing along. Find a CDC monitor and laugh in his face. I'm booked on Apex out of Athens, 8n Greek Isles. Enjoy that cruise from a country that doesn't have to deal with the idiocy of the CDC. Wait for this to sort itself out and sail on Equinox out of PEV in August.

This is the stupidest of stupid stuff going on with the CSO. Restaurant's and bars have been doing fine with no masking while eating or dinking the entire dining period without any problems for at least 6 months. I'm confidently waiting on the Federal Judge hearing FL's request for a preliminary injunction against the CDC enforcing it's Conditional Sail Order (CSO) on the cruise industry ruling that it is unlawful. May 12th!!! If it's granted the bull-shit walks and the CDC's house of cards along with it's stupidity involving all manner of stupid COVID mitigation measures and guidance all comes crashing down.

"CDC Guidance for US cruises- 98% Crew, 95% Pax vaccinated. Are you OK with that?" I'm fine with it, in fact I prefer it but I'm also OK with the alternative the CDC has laid out. Given a choice, I'd choose a sailing where vaccination is required to board.

There's a distinction between "volunteers" for test cruises and pax on revenue cruises. Volunteers on test cruises have to be fully vaccinated with proof or get a letter from your PCP that "the volunteer passenger has no medical conditions that would place the volunteer at a high risk for severe COVID - 19 as determined through CDC guidance." A pax on a revenue cruise will be following one of the two pathways to restart..... and we don't yet know how that is going to play out. Frankly, for revenue cruising I think this, again, is unworkable. Confusion will reign supreme among management, ships officers and crew and passengers. Hoping the Judge rules this craziness unlawful. Back in March of 2020, we debarked on a Friday in PEV from one ship, planned to go home for the weekend and sail again on Monday. To do that because I was 72 at the time and per "CDC Guidance" I was high risk. I'm perfectly healthy but have had my entire life what amounts to a insignificant heart arrhythmia and I take a cholesterol lowering drug. My primary wouldn't write the letter and neither would a local doc-in-the box. The cruise got cancelled on Sunday before embarkation anyway. Unless you are in the under, or there about, 40ish group and don't take any medications, docs aren't going to risk the liability. They may not write one under any circumstance related to your health and age. Basically, forget abut volunteering for a test cruise unless you're vaccinated and can prove it.

Desantis sees the requirement for vaccination to board a cruise ship as "unnecessary." That's it at this point. He's not crossed the bridge yet of saying he will or will not hold the cruise lines operating from FL ports to the no vaccine passports required to get service law in FL. Keep in mind it is the the CDC that has put up all the barriers to a restart and then defined two restart pathways: Vaccinated and skip the test sailing protocols or unvaccinated and do the test sailing protocols. Props to 0_0 who notes the importance of May 12th. All of this discussion will be moot if the federal Judge that is hearing the case issues an injunction invalidating the CSO. Fingers crossed.

We've been cruising since 2001 and have sailed most lines. Our preference is Celebrity but cruise line choice is a personal matter and reasons for a particular preferences are going to vary widely. I thought the post above that associated cruise length and pricing with passenger behavior was pretty accurate. Did a one night cruise to nowhere out of Sydney (between B2Bs) on Celebrity Solstice that was worse than anything I have ever experienced on any ship in terms of drunkenness, fights and general bad behavior. Sailed on a 5n Carnival Breeze in a Captains Cabin suite that was a super deal and loved it - great food and a nice crowd. The industry, at one time proper, staid and rarely changing through probably the late 90s early 2000s, is now changing rapidly, almost year to year, to adapt to a rapidly growing, generally more money to spend cruising clientele. I've not liked the industry wide trend to exclusivity but there's nothing I can do about it. That's what cruisers are looking for and will pay for so, I don't blame the cruise lines for adapting their ships to accommodate that crowd. Importantly, it's been my experience that I'm not treated any differently on any of the lines that offer exclusivity as an amenity if I book the lowest priced cabin I can find.

From what I'm keeping track of, I have no doubt that RCL and Celebrity ships are quick-turning in Port of Miami and PEV. These are not likely to be provisioning or fuel stops although those could be a secondary reasons for the stop. The primary is more than likely boarding crew members to go through the companies quarantine and vaccination process. I think the movement of crew from their homes to board a specific ship on which they are going to serve as crew for the restart has been detailed somewhere in this message board. Here's a link to an article describing the re-crewing process from an interview that appeared in Cruise Industry News (forget the file photo that headlines the interview article. Has nothing to do with current crew movement). The article lays out the technical aspects of crew movement - its complicated and time consuming: https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24849-happy-to-have-a-job-crew-excited-to-return-to-cruise-ships.html Equinox and Edge will be sailing out of PEV when the re-start commences. Equinox has a quick-turn at PEV on 5/06/21 from 0700-1700. I believe one of the most productive ways to get a feel for what RCG is doing and when a restart is likely, is to follow cruise port schedules. I'm about 90% positive RCG knows precisely when they are planning each ship's restart. Given the 60d time frame from warm storage to revenue sailings, RCG has probably already identified start date windows for the ships that will be involved in the first phase of the re-start. They have to have done that in order to plan for ramping up ship's crew manning levels, completing quarantine and conducting crew training. https://pevvesseltraffic.broward.org/webx/

Kaitlyn ...... there's an extensive discussion of this in a specific thread dealing with this question. Have a look here: