Jump to content

State of Florida Sues CDC Over Cruise Shut Down


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, danv3 said:

The issue of standing is a big one for Florida to overcome. If a cruise line had joined the lawsuit, that would have really helped.  

Cruise lines cannot join since they do not pay corporate taxes, etc. in the U.S.A. for the ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Phoenix said:

You cannot sue for revenue lost in one country when your ships are flagged in another and in which you do not pay taxes on said revenue. 

They pay payroll taxes on US based employees (aka the corporate staff in Miami).

By virtue of having a presence in the US they are paying some level of income and other taxes since they must have a US registered company of some sort here in the US (probably a sub of the foreign parent).

Its misinformation that they dont pay taxes in the US, they pay taxes on the operations that occur in the US.

They pay port fees to the ports to use the port facilities, etc.

True they dont pay taxes on the bulk of the profits earned on their ships, but those ships spend the bulk of their time out of the US waters so I dont have a problem with it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, jticarruthers said:

They pay payroll taxes on US based employees (aka the corporate staff in Miami).

By virtue of having a presence in the US they are paying some level of income and other taxes since they must have a US registered company of some sort here in the US (probably a sub of the foreign parent).

Its misinformation that they dont pay taxes in the US, they pay taxes on the operations that occur in the US.

They pay port fees to the ports to use the port facilities, etc.

True they dont pay taxes on the bulk of the profits earned on their ships, but those ships spend the bulk of their time out of the US waters so I dont have a problem with it.

 

Office employees are one thing as they are booking cruises and that revenue does get taxed. But revenues generated by the ships are a different story as those revenues are not taxed by U.S. but I'm sure the U.S. would if they could.  If any cruiseline could brinh an action due to lost revenue from their ships, don't you think they would have done so within the past 14-15 months? All cruise lines are just sitting back EXCEPT NCL who threatened moving their SHIPS to another port. NCL knows you cannot sue for lost revenue which they do not pay taxes on. So, next best thing was to move their ships in order to get the revenue flowing again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the CDC's memorandum:

 

3 The last extension of the NSO, through Oct. 31, 2020, found that, despite the continuing voluntary suspension of operations, and the cooperation of the industry, “[c]ruise ships continue to be an unsafe environment” and were the location of multiple outbreaks and deaths during the period of voluntary suspension.

 

Can someone tell me when these multiple outbreaks and deaths occurred? As far as I remember, out of all the sailings that have happened over the past year, May to May, there have only been a handful of cases and those were contained thus showing that the cruise lines know what they are doing in regards to any cases on a ship. The CDC seems to believe that they can force the cruise lines to achieve a 0% case rate on their ships, and if they don't they would love to shut them down again once restarted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenix said:

Cruise lines cannot join since they do not pay corporate taxes, etc. in the U.S.A. for the ships.

That is not accurate.  Cruise lines operating in (and in several cases based in) the US absolutely have access to US courts.

Also, no one is talking about suing for lost revenue.  This case is about injunctive and declaratory relief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, danv3 said:

That is not accurate.  Cruise lines operating in (and in several cases based in) the US absolutely have access to US courts.

Also, no one is talking about suing for lost revenue.  This case is about injunctive and declaratory relief.

I'll just ask you this, then why haven't they done so already? As always, agree to disagree. Have a terrific day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Phoenix said:

I'll just ask you this, then why haven't they done so already? As always, agree to disagree. Have a terrific day!

I'm assuming it's a genuine fear of retaliation. The cruise lines have no current leverage against the CDC. So their choice is to play nice as they can trying to get them to ease restrictions. With the exception of Del Rio, none of the CEOs are publicly stating their opinions in the way they really should.

 

1 hour ago, danv3 said:

The issue of standing is a big one for Florida to overcome. If a cruise line had joined the lawsuit, that would have really helped.  

Alaska joining the lawsuit does help with this. Cruising revenue is a MUCH bigger part of their GDP. Last estimate I read was about 5%. Also helps that multiple states have joined because it becomes an issue that's bigger than Florida and the CDCs response is really laser focused on stating specifically Florida doesn't have the standing. But multiple states experiencing harm from this order changes the narrative substantially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know we really didnt think this through, with so many of us being in Florida already and knowing how to get things done in the new modern era we really should have planned on having a "protest" today ... you know one of those things were lots of people gather in a small area without masks and yell in each others faces ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exhibit from the Port of Miami economic impact study. These numbers are in ($1,000). So you're talking an economic impact of $4.4 Billion on the Port of Miami for shutting down the cruise industry according to this study. The article above from the maritime lawyers call their impact on Florida minimal. I would hardly call $4.4 Billion a "minimal" impact on the Florida state economy. ?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.9.21.pdf

image.png.9557b7741e5a158a3df37fab23d1af89.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, LovetoCruise87 said:

Can someone tell me when these multiple outbreaks and deaths occurred? As far as I remember, out of all the sailings that have happened over the past year, May to May, there have only been a handful of cases and those were contained thus showing that the cruise lines know what they are doing in regards to any cases on a ship. The CDC seems to believe that they can force the cruise lines to achieve a 0% case rate on their ships, and if they don't they would love to shut them down again once restarted. 

I don't have a list, nor do I have time to put one together at the moment, so I'm working from memory.

Hurtigruten, which operates an expedition cruise line and ferry service in Norway, had a significant outbreak on one of their ships. The later admitted they were not following their own protocols on the ship.

I don't remember if these others were before or after the NSO changed to the CSO, but there were a handful of others:

  • A small expedition cruise line (uncruise perhaps?) tried to start in Alaska and had an immediate outbreak.
  • More recently, there was a luxury line that was going to sail out of Barbados, but had an outbreak early on and had to cancel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, steverk said:

I don't have a list, nor do I have time to put one together at the moment, so I'm working from memory.

Hurtigruten, which operates an expedition cruise line and ferry service in Norway, had a significant outbreak on one of their ships. The later admitted they were not following their own protocols on the ship.

I don't remember if these others were before or after the NSO changed to the CSO, but there were a handful of others:

  • A small expedition cruise line (uncruise perhaps?) tried to start in Alaska and had an immediate outbreak.
  • More recently, there was a luxury line that was going to sail out of Barbados, but had an outbreak early on and had to cancel.

Wikipedia is not always the best/most reliable source but someone already put kind of list together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_on_cruise_ships

Beware some of the missing dates are from early last year. Check the reference/source and look at the dates of the cited articles of those with missing dates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Uncwmark said:

I’m disappointed @Matt elected to use this blog’s Twitter account to retweet ANYTHING from this ambulance chaser. Why give him a bigger platform? 

I chose to retweet because it is the only legal insight I have found on the merits of the case.

The guy is clearly a cruise hater and I'm not a fan of his by any means. However, there are a lot of eye balls on this case and I have yet to find any other look at the legal standing of what to expect.

Trust me, I get it feels "dirty" going to his site. But I think there's a difference between reading one article and checking it everyday.

I appreciate the feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, let's start with the source of the linked article arguing why FL won't prevail in it's law suit against HHS and CDC. Matt just commented. This is Jim Walker, people. He is a notorious anti cruise freak. You could say he is a fraud. He claims he is a lawyer but when I looked at his web site a month or so ago and read has anit-cruise sentiments, I then searched the FL register for FL Bar certification. Nothing.

But let's be fair. I'm averse to arguments that attack the source.  What is "Standing." 

The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent.

There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court.

Walker must not have read the addendum to FL's suit that presented a study showing the economic impact to the state's ports and the state itself. Whether Standing is established by that is in the Judge's hands. If I'm Merryday, I'd have a hard time saying FL hasn't suffered "injury in fact."

Does the CDC's authority to regulate sanitation and potential for the spread of disease trump a state's authority to disallow it? This is a very good question. It breaks down into two parts: (1) Federal v. state authority. (2) Is their a continuing and imminent threat of the spread of SARS2/COVID related disease aboard a cruise ship.

If I recall the arguments offered in  FL's complaint, FL cited case law on the question of Federal authority to regulate matters that cross into a state's regulatory authority. The decision on this argument is going to be precedent setting with regard to U.S.C. 42. If FL prevails, it will set limits on the CDC's authority and probably require legilative action to address that. My view is that the CDC has over-reached as it pertains to the extent of time argument that FL has advanced. i.e., U.S.C. 42 authorizes the CDC to intervene on a specific and time limited basis, not a 15 month shuttering of ship operations that may or may not actually present a threat of disease spread.

Does the SARS2/COVID threat persist such that continued restrictive measures involving maritime operations enforced by the CDC are necessary? We've been down this road here. The steps the cruise lines have taken and existing sanitary protocols that the cruise lines are following mitigate the threat. The emerging circumstance with vaccines nearly eliminate it.

I'll stop here as arguments diminishing the CDC's response to FL's claim will be moot in a matter of hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Matt said:

I chose to retweet because it is the only legal insight I have found on the merits of the case.

The guy is clearly a cruise hater and I'm not a fan of his by any means. However, there are a lot of eye balls on this case and I have yet to find any other look at the legal standing of what to expect.

Trust me, I get it feels "dirty" going to his site. But I think there's a difference between reading one article and checking it everyday.

I appreciate the feedback.

You do a great job with this site, @Matt and I appreciate your explanation.  I get it and, unfortunately, the ambulance chaser may ultimate be right regarding outcome of today’s hearing. We’ll see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mook1525 said:

Will there be any kind of outcome today? If so what time?

 

thanks

The hearing was scheduled for 9am today. It likely has already commenced and concluded. We don't really have a timeline on when the judge will produce any orders. It can be assumed all parties involved will want an expedient ruling, however to my knowledge there's no specific timeline applied to preliminary injunctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't belive journalists weren't in the courtroom. Appears the case was heard by Merryday. That's good. HHS attorney's first claim was that FL didn't have standing. I felt if it made it past that technical obstacle good chance FL would prevail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point the CDC has so much egg on its face. They are even receiving criticism from main stream media- who have been towing their ridiculous agenda for a year. The latest was letting the teacher’s unions tell the CDC not to open schools. Their messaging is all over the place. Congress is grilling them as we speak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jill said:

At this point the CDC has so much egg on its face. They are even receiving criticism from main stream media- who have been towing their ridiculous agenda for a year. The latest was letting the teacher’s unions tell the CDC not to open schools. Their messaging is all over the place. Congress is grilling them as we speak. 

Yes, they are losing the public with slow, outdated guidelines. The guidelines for children summer camps are also a tipping point of public opinion. Walensky didnt fare well yesterday in Congressional hearing. 

And for all the talk of vaccine hesitancy, the CDC is contributing to it by their outdated guidelines for vaccinated people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have viewed the law suit since it's filing as having wide ranging implications for the CDC's authority to impose restrictions on business activity, mobility and behaviors. In fact, legislation that has recently been advanced with implications for the cruise industry has focused on limiting the CDC's power to do the kinds of things they did, not just to the cruise industry, but by fiat to large segments of the economy. To limit their powers to unilaterally shut things down, even in a declared PHE without appropriate oversight that balances the cost of restrictions versus the benefits to PH is something that, IMO, is urgently needed.

The outcome of the FL lawsuit is potentially a seminal event in those deliberations regarding Congress' oversight of the executive and other branches of government. Accordingly, Merryday is probably taking his time, doing some cosulting and getting briefed on the implications of an injunction should he be considering that. What this might produce is an injunction against enforcement of the CSO with narrowly defined limits that would apply only to U.S.C 42.

This kind of thing could, indeed, take some time to work out the details of what his ruling will actually say.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twangster said:

The CDC knows they were being ridiculous.  

Well, I'm not sure they have a clue that much of their pandemic guidance has, from the beginning, lacked good data to back up that guidance. Early on there wasn't good data so, OK. We should play along. However, it's become increasingly obvious that most of their guidance is not based on the abundance of data that became available by fall, 2020 and is even more robust as I write this.

For me, the "in abundance of caution" approach that has back-stopped their guidance and their messaging has created unwanted outcomes more deleterious to both US PH interests and her economy than it has produced PH benefits.

I think it telling that there has been no acknowledgement of that, no significant pull back. That indicates to me the top decision makers are living in an alternate reality, self created with opposing views being silenced in a typical "trust me, I'm the government, we know what we are doing, and we're here to help" mentality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...