State of Florida Sues CDC Over Cruise Shut Down

[CruiseGus]

with the approval of dozens of ships for test sailing, the case for Florida to overturn the CSO gets weaker every day.  The CDC can now say they have a plan and this plan is working, they are well on their way to getting the cruise industry up and running in a safe an effective manner.  The abundance of the approvals for test sailings also makes it much harder on any effort to overturn or change the Florida law banning vaccine passports for cruise ships and with the threat of Texas following suit, that will push the industry to the new norm of putting ships back in service via test cruises.

What I am waiting to see is how fast CDC turns around the approval to sail after these first few test cruises and what if any old standards they intend to modify or eliminate (ie masks required indoors).

[jticarruthers]

10 hours ago, JeffB said:

We may be thinking about vaccines the wrong way just like most, and even the experts, thought as the pandemic burst onto the scene that everything and everyone needs to be locked down. Well, that was wrong headed thinking for a number of reasons that have become more and more apparent as time passes and data gets refined....... not everyone needed to get locked down to mitigate the pandemic.

Likewise, not everyone needs to get vaccinated to control the pandemic. SARS2 will never be eradicated and it is a fools errand to try to do that by vaccinating everyone. We are not trying to obtain zero risk of getting infected. We should be trying to control it so that we can medically deal with people who will get infected reducing the risk of serious illness and death.

The data:

• Death rates and hospitalization rates have plummeted (regional exceptions pertain - I'll get to that). What that means is that the vaccines, even with a global average of around 30-40% receiving at least one jab, are more effective in preventing serious illness and death than experts thought they would be.
• Death rates in the US from COVID are very close to pre-SARS2 pandemic death rates experienced from seasonal influenza.
• New cases of COVID have decreased dramatically (regional exceptions). What this means is that vaccines slow, do not stop, transmission even at the low vaccination rates some regions, US states and countries are experiencing.
• It is important to remember that only a small portion of the word's population (3-5%) is at risk for serious illness or death. The rest may get flu like symptoms but can essentially go about life normally ...... that reality was completely lost early in the pandemic and catastrophic economic and social damage have been wrought because of that.
• As more people get vaccinated R0 (R naught) for that population trends well below 1.0. Remember that metric? It was king as a measure of "dire consequences" way back then when the virus was spreading rapidly. The media used it incessantly - above 1.0, the virus is spreading; below 1.0 it is receding and therefore controlled. I don't believe a single US state or county in the US has an R(0) > 1.0 - its not even reported any longer for that reason.
• Another less used metric these days, % positive, was also used to scare people. At it's height, some regions/states had % positives ranging from 10-20%. It's not scary anymore so the media doesn't report it.  Below 5% is considered as an indicator that the virus is not spreading/is controlled; below 3% is ideal. In the US and EU, it's hard to find a sustained % positive > 5%. In fact, many US counties don't have any new cases or deaths and haven't for weeks

Regional exceptions are occurring with the impact of disease burden in those regions varying. The primary underlying cause is a lack of vaccines and poor medical infrastructure in India, and countries in Asia and Latin America. We can't do much about that individually. Collective plans to deal with that are emerging. It will take time. Meanwhile populations in poor countries are going to suffer.  In the US, vaccine hesitancy plays a part in what amounts to small scale local outbreaks with little to no impact on disease burden (hospitalizations and deaths). We can live with this and that is the point.

My take is that at the point around 50-60% of any selected cohort becomes vaccinated, the virus will be controlled. Not eradicated but controlled to the extent that disease burden is nil. .  

IOW, we are already at the point where a return to normalcy in the US is underway. While vaccinating more people will help keep case numbers very low and the risk of serious illness and death right along with that, not getting that final 40% probably isn't all that necessary.  

Translation - Its basically "under control" (not gone but it never will be) so lets go on with normal already ... (My translation not putting words in your mouth)

 

 

[RBRSKI]

2 hours ago, jticarruthers said:

Translation - Its basically "under control" (not gone but it never will be) so lets go on with normal already ... (My translation not putting words in your mouth)

 

 

KISS (Keep It Simple Silly)  You can exchange the Silly for something else but I might be censored!  

[0_0]

Hearing scheduled for 6/10/2021 10:00AM. Looks like we're not going to get any ruling until ANOTHER hearing is held. 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

[UNCFanatik]

24 minutes ago, 0_0 said:

Hearing scheduled for 6/10/2021 10:00AM. Looks like we're not going to get any ruling until ANOTHER hearing is held. 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

Great June 10th. Just gives Royal another reason to hold up any announcements for July/August sailings because some Royal Exec thinks the CSO may be struck down 

[JeffB]

FL's law suit moves forward. Here's what's happening today:

First, Merryday approved entry into the court record of HHS's/CD's motion, "in light of changing circumstances ....." This is where HHS/CDC attorneys argue that (1) with Congress ratifying and the president signing into law the Alaska Cruising Bill, which contains a provision that Alaska sailings from Seattle must obtain a CSC, it follows that the CSO is now law. (2) If the CSO is enjoined, as FL has requested, the Alaska Sailing order will be voided and will essentially end any chance of an Aalskan cruising season in 2021. HHS/CDC has until 6/7 to supplement the motion but limits the supplement to only the single issue rasied in the motion itself

Contained in that approval from Merryday is direction that FL has until June 9th to file a motion in response. We pretty much know what FL thinks of HHS's/CDC's position. "It's absurd, a delaying tactic and isn't a correct interpretation of the Alaska Sailing law." FL may add to that position in response.

The hearing will continue on Thursday, 6/10 at 10am. Attorney's will present their arguments. What would be nice is that the court recorder's notes taken during the hearing were published. This way we may get a clue about how Merryday will rule based on the questions he asks the attorneys.  At the first hearing they weren't (both sides get a chance to correct the record). I don't think we'll see the record of the court proceedings on June 10th in the public domain for a while. What bothered me last time around is that reporters either weren't present, it was not a public hearing or they were just lazy and didn't consider the issue as important to cover as we do. Maybe this time - the case is getting national press coverage.

Every issue we are concerned about with the exception of vaccination policies, that is affecting cruise restarts, hinges on Merryday's ruling. If FL prevails, even in part, e.g., overly burdensome parts of the CSO, like the ancillary hoop jumping, is enjoined, a ruling like that will speed things up, clarify protocols for the cruise lines and, in turn, the cruise lines can release those protocols and procedures to us as well as firm up schedules. 

On vaccinations: It gets complicated but first, this is not a direct part of FL's lawsuit. There are indirect implications though. Let's say the 98/95% requirement is enjoined. IMO, RCL will benefit if they can cruise with unvaccinated kids and/or not require anyone to be vaccinated and be in compliance with FL's ban on them to enter a business/receive service. Lines that are already requiring guests to be vaccinated will probably change to recommend them. This to be in compliance with FL law and sail from FL ports.

Alternatively, lines that want to require vaccinations to board could sail and challenge FL's law in court - IMO that law is illegal and unconstitutional as businesses, being ethically and morally bound, and in some circumstances, legally bound, to provide customers and employees a safe environment. That is well established in the law.

It will be interesting to watch how all this unfolds.  

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/70/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

[smokeybandit]

Based on the Carnival president's comments about working with the CDC to get the vaccination percentage rule tweaked (my interpretation), I wonder if the CDC does that which then allows flexibility in how the cruise lines seek majority vaccinated cruises without "requiring" a vaccination, and this all goes away then.

[UNCFanatik]

As I mentioned in another thread, the June 10th date gives Royal more reason to delay any announcement of July cruises because some Royal Exec is holding onto the hope that the CSO will be struck down

[UNCFanatik]

8 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Based on the Carnival president's comments about working with the CDC to get the vaccination percentage rule tweaked (my interpretation), I wonder if the CDC does that which then allows flexibility in how the cruise lines seek majority vaccinated cruises without "requiring" a vaccination, and this all goes away then.

Yes, I agree because it will be interesting to see how Carnival handles their early July sailings because i dont see a schedule for their simulated sailings. 

Still too much uncertainty in the air to have confidence that there will actually be any early July revenue cruises. Less than 30 days now and a lot has to happen 

[WesKinetic]

So just thinking ahead to best/worst case scenarios (and I mean that purely in a "fastest vs. slowest" sense, not a value judgment of what I personally want to see happen), here's what I've come up with, but I'm sure I'm missing something. 

Fastest:
1. Court sides with FL, rules the CSO invalid.
2. Either cruise lines opt not to require vaccines or some kind of compromise is reached on Florida's vaccine requirement.
3. At that point, cruising (at least out of Florida) could theoretically start as soon as the cruise lines are ready to go.

Slowest:
1. Court sides with CDC, CSO remains in place. 
2. CDC slowly approves test cruises. 
3. Cruise lines say they still plan to require vaccines for those eligible.
4. Florida digs its heels in and files suit to prohibit vaccine requirement.
5. Cruises are put on hold until a court ruling on Florida's case. 
6. Whichever way the court rules, things remain on hold pending appeal. 
7. Supreme Court ultimately rules in Florida's favor.
8. Cruise lines have to come up with new on-board protocols before they are finally ready to resume cruising.
 

Love him or hate him, DeSantis deserves credit for finally getting CDC off of high center. But his rhetoric on the vaccine law has kind of painted Florida into a corner. It was Florida's suit that finally moved CDC to (slowly) start taking action, and they're to be commended for that. But, ironically, they could win their suit against the CDC but then have a court fight over their vaccine law grind the process to a halt. I hope it doesn't come to that and that cooler heads will prevail. But I'm not optimistic about that anytime politics gets involved. 

[Matt]

Merged the two Florida suing CDC threads into one

[UNCFanatik]

8 minutes ago, WesKinetic said:

So just thinking ahead to best/worst case scenarios (and I mean that purely in a "fastest vs. slowest" sense, not a value judgment of what I personally want to see happen), here's what I've come up with, but I'm sure I'm missing something. 

Fastest:
1. Court sides with FL, rules the CSO invalid.
2. Either cruise lines opt not to require vaccines or some kind of compromise is reached on Florida's vaccine requirement.
3. At that point, cruising (at least out of Florida) could theoretically start as soon as the cruise lines are ready to go.

Slowest:
1. Court sides with CDC, CSO remains in place. 
2. CDC slowly approves test cruises. 
3. Cruise lines say they still plan to require vaccines for those eligible.
4. Florida digs its heels in and files suit to prohibit vaccine requirement.
5. Cruises are put on hold until a court ruling on Florida's case. 
6. Whichever way the court rules, things remain on hold pending appeal. 
7. Supreme Court ultimately rules in Florida's favor.
8. Cruise lines have to come up with new on-board protocols before they are finally ready to resume cruising.
 

Love him or hate him, DeSantis deserves credit for finally getting CDC off of high center. But his rhetoric on the vaccine law has kind of painted Florida into a corner. It was Florida's suit that finally moved CDC to (slowly) start taking action, and they're to be commended for that. But, ironically, they could win their suit against the CDC but then have a court fight over their vaccine law grind the process to a halt. I hope it doesn't come to that and that cooler heads will prevail. But I'm not optimistic about that anytime politics gets involved. 

Not to mention what effect the ruling will ultimately have on Alaskan cruises with the assertion from the government that Alaskan cruises were given exception to sail without porting in another country was based on the conditions of the CSO. 

If FL lawsuit results in CSO being struck down does that cause chaos with Alaskan cruises?

[smokeybandit]

12 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

Yes, I agree because it will be interesting to see how Carnival handles their early July sailings because i dont see a schedule for their simulated sailings. 

Interestingly, to get approval for a test cruise you don't need to specify when your test cruise would happen. Just where and how long.

[WesKinetic]

7 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

Not to mention what effect the ruling will ultimately have on Alaskan cruises with the assertion from the government that Alaskan cruises were given exception to sail without porting in another country was based on the conditions of the CSO. 

If FL lawsuit results in CSO being struck down does that cause chaos with Alaskan cruises?

CDC seemed to argue that it would in its court brief but, while I do work in the legal field, that gets a little outside my area of expertise as to how strong of an argument that is. My hunch is that Congress would find a way to fast-track legislation that accomplishes the same goal as ATRA, but without referencing the CSO. But Congress' definition of "fast" and mine might be two different things. 

[JeffB]

It's important to remember that mediation reached an "impasse." The two sides couldn't agree on a settlement. To me, that signals FL is going for an all or nothing ruling. It also implies that FL's attorneys feel that HHS/CDC exceeded it's statutory authority with the NSO and subsequently with the CSO.

My take is that in a PHE, HHS/CSO probably acted within the provisions of U.S.C 42, section 264 that deals with the VSP. But that is definitely debatable. The law is complex and there is overlapping federal and state regulatory authority. Merryday will rule on this. It's hard for me to imagine he'll deal with the CSO in parts. I think the state of FL already knows he won't and are very confident in their position - all or nothing.

HHS/CDC lawyers haven't helped themselves with their recent motion that FL has called absurd. I think Merryday will agree with FL's position (because it's an end run and entirely absurd, IMO) but it's up in the air how he will rule. Good stuff. 

[UNCFanatik]

8 minutes ago, JeffB said:

It's important to remember that mediation reached an "impasse." The two sides couldn't agree on a settlement. To me, that signals FL is going for an all or nothing ruling. It also implies that FL's attorneys feel that HHS/CDC exceeded it's statutory authority with the NSO and subsequently with the CSO.

My take is that in a PHE, HHS/CSO probably acted within the provisions of U.S.C 42, section 264 that deals with the VSP. But that is definitely debatable. The law is complex and there is overlapping federal and state regulatory authority. Merryday will rule on this. It's hard for me to imagine he'll deal with the CSO in parts. I think the state of FL already knows he won't and are very confident in their position - all or nothing.

HHS/CDC lawyers haven't helped themselves with their recent motion that FL has called absurd. I think Merryday will agree with FL's position (because it's an end run and entirely absurd, IMO) but it's up in the air how he will rule. Good stuff. 

It will interesting to watch because Judge Merryday has a  chance to strike down the CSO the first go round put punted and sent to mediation. What is the chance he will strike it down now? I mean did anyone really think mediation would have been successful? And last time, how many days did it take him to decide to send to mediation? 

Do we expect a quicker ruling from the June 10th hearing? 

[JeffB]

2 hours ago, UNCFanatik said:

Do we expect a quicker ruling from the June 10th hearing? 

Really hard to say. Another important aspect of this FL case is that it was filed under Administrative Procedures and Agency Action. Also at play is that FL requested and received and expedited hearing in Merryday's court.

FL lays out a strong case, IMO, that HHS/CDC didn't follow it's own notification of parties rules contained in applicable law. Under Agency Actions, FL claims the NSO was illegally implemented, most notably to it's extent and failure to notify and consult at each review and renewal. Same for the CSO - just a continuation of the claim I mention above.

I don't think there is any question that the NSO and CSO did immense damage to FL's economy but that argument has more to do with establishing standing and harm. Even though it's a pretty impressive argument, it has littel to do with what Merryday has to sort out.

Merryday will probably provide a narrow ruling on this one way or the other. I like FL's argument but things change in a PHE and there's that buggaboo of overlapping state and federal regulatory authority Merryday has to wade through. It's not out of the question that Merryday won't really rule in the sense of that word. He could write an opinion that faults congress for not clarifying this in existing law and says it's not clear. You guys need to fix that. OK, if he does that, and he might, what happens to the CSO?  It could stand or he could enjoin it pending Congressional action or he could let it stand pending Congressional action. 

As I think this thing through, I could see Merryday granting FL the benefit of the doubt on the stregth of thier arguments, enjoin the CSO, sending the issue back to Congress to unwind the mess that the current law is in. We know how long that might take given the Biden Administration's hot-button issues. Restarting cruising from US ports is probably not among them. 

[NickNafster79]

58 minutes ago, WesKinetic said:

So just thinking ahead to best/worst case scenarios (and I mean that purely in a "fastest vs. slowest" sense, not a value judgment of what I personally want to see happen), here's what I've come up with, but I'm sure I'm missing something. 

Fastest:
1. Court sides with FL, rules the CSO invalid.
2. Either cruise lines opt not to require vaccines or some kind of compromise is reached on Florida's vaccine requirement.
3. At that point, cruising (at least out of Florida) could theoretically start as soon as the cruise lines are ready to go.

Slowest:
1. Court sides with CDC, CSO remains in place. 
2. CDC slowly approves test cruises. 
3. Cruise lines say they still plan to require vaccines for those eligible.
4. Florida digs its heels in and files suit to prohibit vaccine requirement.
5. Cruises are put on hold until a court ruling on Florida's case. 
6. Whichever way the court rules, things remain on hold pending appeal. 
7. Supreme Court ultimately rules in Florida's favor.
8. Cruise lines have to come up with new on-board protocols before they are finally ready to resume cruising.
 

Love him or hate him, DeSantis deserves credit for finally getting CDC off of high center. But his rhetoric on the vaccine law has kind of painted Florida into a corner. It was Florida's suit that finally moved CDC to (slowly) start taking action, and they're to be commended for that. But, ironically, they could win their suit against the CDC but then have a court fight over their vaccine law grind the process to a halt. I hope it doesn't come to that and that cooler heads will prevail. But I'm not optimistic about that anytime politics gets involved. 

Let's say Option 1 happens (which I highly doubt, but am holding onto any shred of hope I can at this point).

Do you think there would be a chance that cruises that were in limbo (i.e. not canceled yet) due to recently announced testing cruise dates might be back on again?

[UNCFanatik]

13 minutes ago, NickNafster79 said:

Let's say Option 1 happens (which I highly doubt, but am holding onto any shred of hope I can at this point).

Do you think there would be a chance that cruises that were in limbo (i.e. not canceled yet) due to recently announced testing cruise dates might be back on again?

Still a matter of timing. At some point, Royal going to have to make a decision on its July sailings. 

We know that the next hearing will be on June 10th now. How long will it take the Judge to rule? June 10th is a Thursday, so unless he just dismisses the case on the spot, will the hearing be just one day? Will it be two days? If so, it heads into the weekend. So then we get into week on June 14th for Judge to deliberate. Will Royal really wait that long to announce the fate of July sailings and continue to have people in Limbo. Which each passing day, people become more upset with Royals lack of communication.

Then there is the issue on % of passengers required to be vaccinated. Will Royal even be able to meet those on a given sailing with the amount of children under 12 plue the 12-16 year olds that parents may not want to have vaccinated. 

as they say, anything is possible but probable is another story.

[NickNafster79]

18 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

Still a matter of timing. At some point, Royal going to have to make a decision on its July sailings. 

We know that the next hearing will be on June 10th now. How long will it take the Judge to rule? June 10th is a Thursday, so unless he just dismisses the case on the spot, will the hearing be just one day? Will it be two days? If so, it heads into the weekend. So then we get into week on June 14th for Judge to deliberate. Will Royal really wait that long to announce the fate of July sailings and continue to have people in Limbo. Which each passing day, people become more upset with Royals lack of communication.

Then there is the issue on % of passengers required to be vaccinated. Will Royal even be able to meet those on a given sailing with the amount of children under 12 plue the 12-16 year olds that parents may not want to have vaccinated. 

as they say, anything is possible but probable is another story.

 

[UNCFanatik]

15 minutes ago, NickNafster79 said:

 

see the latest announcement hot off the press from Royal President

 

 

[JeffB]

What of State of  State of Florida v. Becerra (8:21-cv-00839) in the District Court, M.D. Florida?

Impasse on mediation, right? Back to the court room, right?

Sure, attorneys will be attorney's - they've made their cases, established their positions for their clients and will have their day in court.  But this is a fast moving ball game with business interests seemingly driving some level of dialogue that appears to be moving the parties closer to a cruise start-up per the CSO. In this regard the feds and Desantis with his vaccine requirement ban probably have some leverage.

It occurs to me that if Merryday enjoins the CSO.......chaos. Therefore, I don't think he will. He'll rule as I previously asserted, and make a limited and narrow ruling stating the law is unclear, I'm punting this to Congress to fix it.

The bad news is that the CDC will publicly claim victory and no one will see it otherwise because no one will read Merryday's ruling. I do believe that post pandemic congressional changes to applicable laws will provide more oversight of the CDC's authority. But that's not assured. People have short memories.

On to cruising.

[cruisellama]

I see slow rolling the ruling in the interest of both political sides, while continuing  to hurt the cruise industry.  Battle of the egos.  

[CGTLH]

Personally I feel the CSO and needed certification/simulated voyages is a convenient excuse the cruise lines can use. My personal hunch is the cruise lines are feeling the crunch of getting crew members back to the ships and getting them in a condition to serve guests. Not sure what any of the "behind the curtains" reasoning is for simulated voyages being so far out, my hunch still stands at staffing challenges. Highly doubt if the judge enjoins CSO we would be back sailing any sooner than the current time line. I feel the cruise lines for their own benefit want the crew vaccinated as much as possible.

I've always felt the resumption of sailing would be along the lines of a florescent light bulb on a cold day, dim at first and eventually getting up to full brightness.

[dswallow]

No matter what protocols Royal Caribbean finally follows for passengers, they have very clearly communicated that 100% of staff onboard every ship will be vaccinated; perhaps the very rare exception for medical or religious reasons should there be any of those. That, plus how crew are brought onboard (test, flight, test, quarantine, test, board ship, quarantine, test, vaccinate) does not make the process happen quickly. And in doing this they move masses of crew between ships so as to further separate non-vaccinated crew being processed from their final positioning.

[JeffB]

Today, defendants filed their memorandum of opposition to additional motions that FL, et. al have submitted and had approved for entry into the court record.

This motion outlines HHS's/CDC's position with regard to the CSO becoming law when Congress approved the ATRA (Alaska cruising from Seattle). They cited case law to support their position. It's not laughable but it is, to me, after the fact antics. HHS/CDC knew the CSO wasn't lawful - or at least the entire thing was on shaky grounds because, well, they exceeded their authority. Now they're claiming, oh, its now codified. Better late then never. I think Merryday will see through this. 

The motion also claims FL has failed to establish harm. I find this laughable. If you read the motions from TX and Alaska to enter as a co-claimants and the travel association's documentation of the staggering losses due to the unnecessary shuttering of cruise lines and cruise related businesses in their Amicus, you too will find it pretty silly .....but, lawyers will lawyer. What do I know maybe defendant's claim in this regard is legit. Common sense, which the law usually serves pretty well, should factor.

As well, FL has established a strong case that the CDC, as was their responsibility to do before implementing the NSO, failed to consult FL and consider anything other but all or nothing  options, the former being unnecessary and the later inappropriate given knowledge at that time of the virus. 

I still hold that Merryday is unlikely to enjoin the CSO. If anything, defendants have built a decent case, even though its built on some interesting if not far fetched interpretations of recent events and new circumstances. I believe the lines have moved forward with implementing the CSO. IMO, that means their lawyers thought early on that FL would not prevail ..... they've been planning on that basis and that the CSO will stick.

Fine with me. Lots of chaotic scrambling will ensue if Merrryday issues an injunction. My only regret is that the CDC will crow. I wish they'd be humble if it's a clear victory, e.g., dismissal, but they won't. The best outcome IMO, is if Merryday rules that the law is unclear, writes a narrowly focused opinion on some of the initial U.S.C/Federal law that was the basis of FL's law suit, and kicks it back to Congress to sort out the flaws uncovered in this case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/72/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

[cruisellama]

42 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Today, defendants filed their memorandum of opposition to additional motions that FL, et. al have submitted and had approved for entry into the court record.

This motion outlines HHS's/CDC's position with regard to the CSO becoming law when Congress approved the ATRA (Alaska cruising from Seattle). They cited case law to support their position. It's not laughable but it is, to me, after the fact antics. HHS/CDC knew the CSO wasn't lawful - or at least the entire thing was on shaky grounds because, well, they exceeded their authority. Now they're claiming, oh, its now codified. Better late then never. I think Merryday will see through this. 

The motion also claims FL has failed to establish harm. I find this laughable. If you read the motions from TX and Alaska to enter as a co-claimants and the travel association's documentation of the staggering losses due to the unnecessary shuttering of cruise lines and cruise related businesses in their Amicus, you too will find it pretty silly .....but, lawyers will lawyer. What do I know maybe defendant's claim in this regard is legit. Common sense, which the law usually serves pretty well, should factor. As well, FL has established a strong case that the CDC, as was their responsibility to do before implementing the NSO, failed to consult FL and consider anything other but all or nothing  options, the former being unnecessary and the later inappropriate given knowledge at that time of the virus. 

I still hold that Merryday is unlikely to enjoin the CSO. If anything, defendants have built a decent case, even though its built on some interesting if not far fetched interpretations of recent events and new circumstances. I believe the lines have moved forward with implementing the CSO. IMO, that means their lawyers thought early on that FL would not prevail ..... they've been planning on that basis and that the CSO will stick.

Fine with me. Lots of chaotic scrambling will ensue if Merrryday issues an injunction. My only regret is that the CDC will crow. I wish they'd be humble if it's a clear victory, e.g., dismissal, but they won't. The best outcome IMO, is if Merryday rules that the law is unclear, writes a narrowly focused opinion on some of the initial U.S.C/Federal law that was the basis of FL's law suit, and kicks it back to Congress to sort out the flaws uncovered in this case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/72/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

If this gets kicked back to Congress, I don't believe they're motivated to do anything quickly.  Would probably debate on until 1 Nov rolls around.

[JeffB]

Sure and I don't have a problem with that and I don't think the cruise lines do either. They've been moving along as if the CSO as it has evolved was a workable if not somewhat cumbersome way to get revenue sailings from US ports - primarily from FL - going again.

In a couple of months, maybe sooner if rich countries can figure out how to get around 30-50% of citizens of countries in the Southern hemisphere vaxed, the WHO declares an end to the global pandemic and the CDC follows, all of this will be moot.

[JeffB]

One more filing by the defendants today (an attachment to the motion I note above) is a statement from the head of the CDC's Maritime Unit that, IMO, has enormous impact on the Desantis ban.

What this tells me is that the CDC's Maritime unit is asserting that it, and it alone has federal level authority to determine what goes on in ports for which federal authority extends - that is all the ports in FL to the water's edge. Cruise ships operate outside of the water's edge in federally controlled waters. If a line chooses to require vaccines to board that becomes a federally authorized action for the protection of the health and safety of passengers and crew aboard.

If I have this right, Desantis' vaccine requirement ban is toast. There are questions of overlapping state and federal jurisdiction that I'm not sufficiently skilled in the applicable law to render an informed opinion. But common sense seems to point toward federal law trumping state law in this instance. 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/72/1/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

[dswallow]

The CDC's basic argument now appears to be "people are doing things the CSO says to do, so that means the CSO has to be real because they're trying to obey it."

[cruisellama]

10 hours ago, JeffB said:

One more filing by the defendants today (an attachment to the motion I note above) is a statement from the head of the CDC's Maritime Unit that, IMO, has enormous impact on the Desantis ban.

What this tells me is that the CDC's Maritime unit is asserting that it, and it alone has federal level authority to determine what goes on in ports for which federal authority extends - that is all the ports in FL to the water's edge. Cruise ships operate outside of the water's edge in federally controlled waters. If a line chooses to require vaccines to board that becomes a federally authorized action for the protection of the health and safety of passengers and crew aboard.

If I have this right, Desantis' vaccine requirement ban is toast. There are questions of overlapping state and federal jurisdiction that I'm not sufficiently skilled in the applicable law to render an informed opinion. But common sense seems to point toward federal law trumping state law in this instance. 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/72/1/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

Lately it seems that Fed supremacy has been sustained over border states that have tried to levy laws to control immigration flow over their borders.

[Matt]

Here's a copy of what the Dept of Justice attorneys filed on behalf of the CDC yesterday

court-docs-june7.pdf

[CrznTxn]

It appears the reaction of the CDC after the filing of the lawsuit to approve test sailings and shorten their reaction times is their foundation for their response for dismissal. Also they use the argument that Congress passing the Alaska Tourism Restoration Act (ATRA) "ratified" the CSO and lent credibility to them. Both are a stretch to me but may be an out for the judge. With the pressure the US and CDC are receiving from outside sources (G7) to lift travel bans, this to me would also include the lifting of the CSO if such an action occurs.

[JeffB]

12 minutes ago, CrznTxn said:

With the pressure the US and CDC are receiving from outside sources (G7) to lift travel bans, this to me would also include the lifting of the CSO if such an action occurs.

There are two separate issues here:

(1) The FL Lawsuit which is based on the failure of HHS/CDC to comply with Administrative procedures required by law that stipulates or limits what the CDC can due through it's Maritime unit. Matt's link (and mine) details the head of the CDC Maritime Unit's position. It provides a decent historical rational for the CSO and outlines the steps the unit has taken since it's implementation in October, 2020.

(2) Lifting travel bans. There's probably an indirect relationship here with (1) above but functionally they are unrelated. As I understand the "pressure from the G7" you mention it is primarily related to air travel and how the US and G7 countries will manage flight arrivals, existing mitigation measures for passengers boarding or debarking from international flights in and out of the US/G7 countries. However, again as I understand it, sea ports are part of both EU and G7 transportation infrastructure so, yes, there's this indirect relationship between opening airfields and seaports to global travel and the outcome of FL's law suit but technically they aren't related.

. 

[JeffB]

Yesterday evening multiple docket entries appeared for June 8th. The actual document at the entry is not yet available. The one important motion where the title gives away the content is HHS/CDC asking for an extension to respond to FL's response to one of their motions. Merryday approved an extension to 1 July.

This is standard lawyer stuff - ask for extensions, especially when a side thinks their arguments on the law are questionable or that Merryday is going to pull thier pants down in his court room. As I track this case and move forward, I can't avoid the feeling that I really don't care, at this point, what the outcome of the FL suit is. Are FL's attorney's, the Governor, getting tired of being strung along? The defendants probably surmise this is happening - a loss of resolve to pursue an outcome - by the claimants.

The docket does not show that the Judge has delayed the hearing scheduled for tomorrow. That might happen today. We'll see.

 

[Matt]

39 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Merryday approved an extension to 1 July.

So no hearing on Thursday?

[JeffB]

47 minutes ago, JeffB said:

The docket does not show that the Judge has delayed the hearing scheduled for tomorrow. That might happen today. We'll see.

 

[smokeybandit]

Ridiculous the judge gave them that long of an extension to respond to a 5-page rebuttal.

This case will still be going on when cruising out of Florida starts.

[cruisellama]

Slowwwwww rolling

[CruiseGus]

18 minutes ago, cruisellama said:

Slowwwwww rolling

that is how lawyers like to play their game