Jump to content

State of Florida Sues CDC Over Cruise Shut Down


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ChrisK2793 said:

 

C3F416D0-60CA-46BD-8E94-60B7934E1753.jpeg

Thank you. I am very appreciative of your researched and we'll thought out responses that are written for us to easily understand. It couldn't have been quick or easy and yet you still do it for us so thank you! I hope you're right as well...let us just get back to what we  do! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The preliminary injunction finds that in the present scheme regulating the cruise ship industry CDC has acted athwart the Administrative Procedure Act and exercised authority not granted to CDC by statute. CDC’s motion (Doc. 96) for a stay — a stay that would serve to extend the unwarranted, unprecedented, and injurious exercise of governmental power by one person, the Director of CDC — is DENIED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DublinFC said:

So, on July 18th the CSO becomes a recommendation.  What does that mean for the cruise lines?  They can start operations back as normal, still have to do test cruises, or.....???  

It'd likely make it easier to get more ships up and running without the need for test cruises or cumbersome shore agreements.

It probably won't change the onboard experience much for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DublinFC said:

So, on July 18th the CSO becomes a recommendation.  What does that mean for the cruise lines?  They can start operations back as normal, still have to do test cruises, or.....???  

Theoretically, no test cruises required along with any other restriction under CSO (like more than 1 ship at a port)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LovetoCruise87 said:

The preliminary injunction finds that in the present scheme regulating the cruise ship industry CDC has acted athwart the Administrative Procedure Act and exercised authority not granted to CDC by statute. CDC’s motion (Doc. 96) for a stay — a stay that would serve to extend the unwarranted, unprecedented, and injurious exercise of governmental power by one person, the Director of CDC — is DENIED.

I am still trying to figure out if they acted athwart the Administrative Procedure Act how a CSO approved by the Judge would not violate the same act, and how a Federal Judge can find that an Agency did this, yet limit his injunction to a single state, allowing that illegal act to remain in effect for the other 49 states.  The ruling seems very inconsistent with itself to me.  But a Federal Judge is going to do What a Federal Judge wants to do.  Whatever happens I think the worst possible outcome would be something that the Judge has to approve, because after that any changes would also have to be approved by the Court.  Once they take the power over a subject, they rarely give it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

I am still trying to figure out if they acted athwart the Administrative Procedure Act how a CSO approved by the Judge would not violate the same act, and how a Federal Judge can find that an Agency did this, yet limit his injunction to a single state, allowing that illegal act to remain in effect for the other 49 states.  The ruling seems very inconsistent with itself to me.  But a Federal Judge is going to do What a Federal Judge wants to do.  Whatever happens I think the worst possible outcome would be something that the Judge has to approve, because after that any changes would also have to be approved by the Court.  Once they take the power over a subject, they rarely give it back.

1) It's a preliminary injunction, not the outcome of the filed case tried on the merits; not even a proposed outcome per se. There is no particular need for a preliminary injunction to do more than was requested by the plaintiff. When the case goes to trial or is otherwise settled, a final disposition will occur which will have effects beyond the preliminary injunction.

2) The claim of acting beyond the allowances of the APA doesn't mean there couldn't be a way to act within those rules. The judge was allowing reframing the temporary injunction as an option; there was an opportunity for the CDC to change their rules to address the concerns that were expressed in the order for the temporary injunction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, MrMarc said:

I am still trying to figure out if they acted athwart the Administrative Procedure Act how a CSO approved by the Judge would not violate the same act

Imagine you're a teenager with a new set of keys, your mom tells you that you have her permission to go to the mall nearby. You both know what that means (namely the mall in the small town you live in), but after looking at the offerings you decide the Galleria in the nearest major city is actually where you need to go. You hop in the car and go using the age old mantra of 'ask forgiveness, instead of permission" and believing some of the ambiguity in the original agreement could be lawyered. Is your mom right when she is understandably hacked off when you get home? Does the fact that you were wrong to go to the mall 4 hours away mean that you would have been wrong to go to the mall in your city?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, MrMarc said:

I am still trying to figure out if they acted athwart the Administrative Procedure Act how a CSO approved by the Judge would not violate the same act, and how a Federal Judge can find that an Agency did this, yet limit his injunction to a single state, allowing that illegal act to remain in effect for the other 49 states.  The ruling seems very inconsistent with itself to me.  But a Federal Judge is going to do What a Federal Judge wants to do.  Whatever happens I think the worst possible outcome would be something that the Judge has to approve, because after that any changes would also have to be approved by the Court.  Once they take the power over a subject, they rarely give it back.

Without getting into a bunch of legalese blabbering Im seeing it as the whole CSO is not approved by a judge at a federal level. I do not see where a judge has approved a CSO. I see the injunction was not only squashed but done so in very clear terms that the Judge is not very happy with the CDC. Thats just my read. I could be wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, deep1 said:

Without getting into a bunch of legalese blabbering Im seeing it as the whole CSO is not approved by a judge at a federal level. I do not see where a judge has approved a CSO. I see the injunction was not only squashed but done so in very clear terms that the Judge is not very happy with the CDC. Thats just my read. I could be wrong.

 

There is no question how this Judge feels about the CSO and the CDC.  The question is does the CSO need to be approved by a Judge, and what other effects will this Judge's ruling have on the jurisdiction of the CDC and perhaps other Federal Agencies.  Now it is up to an appellate Judge, then perhaps more appellate Judges, then perhaps even more Appellate Judges.  The Judge offered the CDC a chance to submit a new CSO subject to his approval.  If that happened, then the CSO and any changes would have to approved by this Judge.  So we are not there yet, and I am hoping we don't get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, LizzyBee23 said:

Imagine you're a teenager with a new set of keys, your mom tells you that you have her permission to go to the mall nearby. You both know what that means (namely the mall in the small town you live in), but after looking at the offerings you decide the Galleria in the nearest major city is actually where you need to go. You hop in the car and go using the age old mantra of 'ask forgiveness, instead of permission" and believing some of the ambiguity in the original agreement could be lawyered. Is your mom right when she is understandably hacked off when you get home? Does the fact that you were wrong to go to the mall 4 hours away mean that you would have been wrong to go to the mall in your city?

I think this is a more basic question of, from your example, did your mother give you the keys?  But I like the analogy, and you may well be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

There is no question how this Judge feels about the CSO and the CDC.  The question is does the CSO need to be approved by a Judge, and what other effects will this Judge's ruling have on the jurisdiction of the CDC and perhaps other Federal Agencies.  Now it is up to an appellate Judge, then perhaps more appellate Judges, then perhaps even more Appellate Judges.  The Judge offered the CDC a chance to submit a new CSO subject to his approval.  If that happened, then the CSO and any changes would have to approved by this Judge.  So we are not there yet, and I am hoping we don't get there.

After doing some more reasearch, and much to my surprise and confusion, a Preliminary Injunction under the APA can be limited in geographical scope, so as of the 22nd the rules in Florida will be different than in any other state at this time.  That also does away with any issue with the Alaska cruises.  I have been incorrect in my assumption that a Federal Agency could not have different powers in different states.  I believe that upon a final decision, it would become a stay and have Nationwide effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CDC here is like an HOA. HOAs tend to get big heads and do whatever they want since their bylaws are typically written generically enough to allow it. And it's tough to challenge the HOA since their response always is "well you agreed to our terms when you bought the house."

But someone with enough money or power to challenge it can convince a judge that they don't need an architect's plan and approval from 15 neighbors to put a shed in your back yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MrMarc said:

There is no question how this Judge feels about the CSO and the CDC.  The question is does the CSO need to be approved by a Judge, and what other effects will this Judge's ruling have on the jurisdiction of the CDC and perhaps other Federal Agencies.  Now it is up to an appellate Judge, then perhaps more appellate Judges, then perhaps even more Appellate Judges.  The Judge offered the CDC a chance to submit a new CSO subject to his approval.  If that happened, then the CSO and any changes would have to approved by this Judge.  So we are not there yet, and I am hoping we don't get there.

This is the second slap in the face he delivered to CDC First one was they had a chance and when they filed this injunction that was just stomped on,  I think those cards came off the table and he's pissed now...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for some new reading material...

CDC/HHS Motion for Stay (filed 7/7): https://1drv.ms/b/s!AjpWMo-t4z28-WmXO6Y3sW2Onwjp
Florida's Response (filed 7/12): https://1drv.ms/b/s!AjpWMo-t4z28-jA7ayFMI5m9nCca

Any docket being cross referenced should be viewable at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

Here, the district court stayed its order for 30 days to give the CDC the chance to propose a narrower injunction. The CDC offered no proposal, but instead delayed almost three weeks in seeking this extraordinary relief. The Court should deny the motion for that reason alone.

The Judge in his rejection of the stay seemed genuinely surprised the CDC came back with no counter proposal, which seemingly forced his hand not to grant the stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if this changes the dynamic of the appeal? https://1drv.ms/b/s!AjpWMo-t4z28-jFFsCMFP_7tUQw5?e=6WaTKL

 

MOTION OF NCLH
FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL

To summarize NCLH’s views (which are more fully described in the brief) NCLH supports the Conditional Sailing Order and is committed to comply fully with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Matt said:

The Judge in his rejection of the stay seemed genuinely surprised the CDC came back with no counter proposal, which seemingly forced his hand not to grant the stay.

I don't understand why the  Judge was surprised and clearly angered by this.  If CDC filed any changes with this Court, the CDC would be ceding it's power to the Court, and once this Judge has approval power, he would have it forever.  It was a chance to give up, which would be very unusual for any party to do.  The only thing that surprised me was that it took them so long.  Perhaps the were considering a revised CSO, but decided against it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

I don't understand why the  Judge was surprised and clearly angered by this.  If CDC filed any changes with this Court, the CDC would be ceding it's power to the Court, and once this Judge has approval power, he would have it forever.  It was a chance to give up, which would be very unusual for any party to do.  The only thing that surprised me was that it took them so long.  Perhaps the were considering a revised CSO, but decided against it. 

I think their sole goal at this point is to drag this out as long as absolutely possible.  There’s a possibility of a Delta spike that they would then point to as additional evidence of why restrictions are necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrMarc said:

I don't understand why the  Judge was surprised and clearly angered by this.  If CDC filed any changes with this Court, the CDC would be ceding it's power to the Court, and once this Judge has approval power, he would have it forever.  It was a chance to give up, which would be very unusual for any party to do.  The only thing that surprised me was that it took them so long.  Perhaps the were considering a revised CSO, but decided against it. 

I'm surprised he went so easy. He had given them ample opportunity to bring other evidences forward or revise the CSO... He saw them for what they are when they tried this stunt A bunch of wannabe baseless bullies! I'm surprised they tried something so petulant and childish , especially since he gave them  a more than fair opportunity. They whizzed all over that gesture with their motion. Though he hasn't pulled that opportunity officially off the table. I'm sure he is ticked off enough that in effect the offer really is no longer there... They never even considered revising the CSO. They were playing an arrogant game of posturing and continuing with their draconian regulations... 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The recently active thread on FL. v. Bacerra, et.al - US Appeals court lifts CDC cruise ship restrictions in win for Florida -has been locked. We still have a thread to discuss this important topic as it relates to cruising and the cruise industry.

Wanted to elevate it with a post so everyone knows where to post comments or updates on FL's law suit v. the CDC. Of course, keeping it relevant to cruising. And to recap where we are.

It really helps for RCL Blog members following this case that when a new court activity occurs or an event/news involving FL v. Bacerra occurs, a new thread not be started. That's happened twice with Matt merging them. Let's make this THE PLACE to discuss FL V. Bacerra going forward. To recap.........

Nothing new has happened over the last 48h. The CDC's appeal (#95 at the Court Listener) of Judge Merryday's ruling that he issued on June 18th (#91 on the Court Listener) has ended. FL has also withdrawn their appeal to the USSC of the 11th Circuit COA's action after they reversed themselves 6d later. The CDC has publicly acknowledged their CSO is no longer enforceable pending the outcome of litigation. 

The remaining court case track involves the actual litigation of FL v. Bacerra. This will take place on August 12th in Judge Merryday's court (Middle District Court of FL) per #103 and #105 at the Court Listener. These two events are HHS/CDC's unopposed motion to delay the date of their response to FL's complaint to August 12th (#103) and Judge Merryday's approval of the motion (#105). 

This week, the CDC publicly announced that they would not enforce mask mandates on board cruise ships if the cruise lines continued to comply with the CSO on a voluntary basis. Public statements by RCL indicate RCL's intention to voluntarily follow the CSO. I'm unaware if the other majors have made public statements to that effect. In an unrelated matter, NCL has sued the state of FL claiming that the Desantis ban of vaccine mandates is beyond the scope of FL's governor to issue and is unconstitutional.

RCL's COVID related onboard health and safety protocols developed under the CSO that are published and available for review at numerous links, including our front page, are unchanged as of the most recent publication of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An article with some "new" information about the days following the 11th USCOA reversal of it's original ruling, turning the CSO from enforceable to unenforceable, appeared in this morning's local S. FL news papers.

It seems that the CDC sent letter's to all the cruise lines asking them if they intended to voluntarily comply with the CSO pending litigation of FL v. Bacerra adding that if they didn't the CDC would more vigorously enforce masking and sanitation regulations that are unaffected by the 11th's ruling against the CDC. In addition, the CDC threatened that ships not voluntarily complying with the CSO would be identified in public statements made by the CDC that the CDC could not guarantee that a specific ship was safe. 

It's reported that all the lines, along with CLIA sending a letter back to the CDC that it supports voluntary compliance with the CS0, have agreed to voluntarily comply. With NCL appearing to be a holdout, later that day NCL also agreed to voluntarily comply.

Following this action, FL's attorney general asked Judge Merryday to rule that what the CDC was doing was coercive and an attempt to enforce the CSO when it had been ordered not to do so. Merryday refused to rule. I'm unsure of how this action was transmitted as it does not appear (yet) in the Court Listener. I'll be watching for it.

Observers, including myself, feel that the 11th's ruling would make little if any difference in what we might experience on a future cruise if, say, the cruise lines suddenly abandoned compliance with the CSO. In my case, the most appealing action by the cruise lines to insure my safety from COVID infection while aboard is how the lines have required (actually somewhat coerced) guests over 12 to be vaccinated. Vaccinations for cruise ship passengers are not mandated by the CDC. Mandates for them, in all the forms such mandates have taken, are being implemented under separate laws involving the right and responsibility of businesses to provide a safe environment for employees and customers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does the increasing numbers of new COVID cases in FL mean for cruise ship operations?

First, no denying the new case numbers are rising. What that entails with respect to disease burden in FL remains to be seen but, in general, hospitalizations and deaths in FL are not increasing at the same rate as new case numbers are. In checking claims by the press that FL's hospitals and ICU's "are being overwhelmed" by the "surge" in new cases, that is not born out by the numbers. Yes, both basic admissions and ICU beds use for the more seriously ill are up statewide but I could not find a county report on these details that show more than 80% occupancy of either. Moreover, if hospital administrators are asked, they respond that the situation is well in hand.

If you are cruising to the W. Caribbean, Grand Cayman remains closed to cruise ships. Both Coz and Costa Maya have been identified by the Mexican government, being within the state of Quntana Roo, as having "very high" transmission risk. What that designation generates is various levels of strict mitigation measures for businesses and gatherings. I am aware that Celebrity Equinox cruising from PEV to these ports on their itineraries will only allow curated tours from the ship. Guests can't debark and walk around town/do tours on their own.

Both the port of Miami and PEV are, according to a similar transmission risk mechanism released earlier this week by the CDC, within FL counties with high transmission risk according to the table below:

1349652421_CDCRiskTable.thumb.PNG.fc99c99bbaee608ae1c9a8eb67df031e.PNGThe CDC isn't directing increased masking, businesses or school closures or any of that. They are simply letting both state PH officials and the public know the risks they are facing. Ostensibly the CDC is allowing for those availing themselves of this information on viral prevalence to make their own decisions about their activities. As I have posted here before, this is consistent with my views - give us the data and let us decide what to do to protect ourselves and others around us.

This was released on July 27th, just 2d ago, and actually addresses my preference for government PH agencies to give us the data we need to decide for ourselves how we will act and where we will go. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7030e2.htm#T1_down

My personal view and in no way meant to tell you what to do given the facts, is that cruise ships, of all the venues impacted by the circumstance of increasing COVID case numbers, is, hands down, the safest leisure activity to take part in of any of them available to us. The proof is in the pudding. I don't think many members would disagree with this position.

I also believe both federal (CDC) and state PH officials know how safe cruise ships are and how prepared they are to deal with an outbreak aboard and contain it. For that reason, I don't think there is any danger, at the moment,  that any government official at any level would move to restrict cruise ship operations. There's no appetite for such a move. The US continues to move towards accommodative approaches to the management of the pandemic. I feel confident about that .... for now.        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JeffB said:

Following this action, FL's attorney general asked Judge Merryday to rule that what the CDC was doing was coercive and an attempt to enforce the CSO when it had been ordered not to do so. Merryday refused to rule. I'm unsure of how this action was transmitted as it does not appear (yet) in the Court Listener. I'll be watching for it.

Think this document for the ruling: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.114.0.pdf

Letter the CDC had sent: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.108.1.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @CGTLH. Your link is to the CDC's "Dear Colleague" letter. This took me to the series of motions by FL and the defendants on the Court Listener page in response to the CDC's letter. #114 is important and I'm quoting the important part and linking the entire ruling on FL's motion below.

The media reported that Merryday did not rule on FL's motion. He did and DEFERRED the ruling. He did not refuse to rule whihc is what news reports implied. The language in Merryday's ruling is important:

Although the injunction prohibits CDC’s enforcing against the identified ships and ship operators a regulation, policy, or the like that exceeds CDC’s statutory authority, Florida’s motion seems, especially in light of assurances offered by CDC’s counsel at today’s hearing, to anticipate a violation that has not occurred and that might not occur. For a time, the disposition of Florida’s motion is DEFERRED. When and if necessary, Florida may renew and supplement the motion, including with additional documentation and affidavits, if CDC either by means of CDC’s Dear Colleague letter, as clarified, or by means of any other agency action violates the injunction, including a violation effected by any pattern of vexatious, harassing, coercive, discriminatory, bad faith, or retaliatory conduct that amounts in effect to CDC’s undertaking to enforce a matter that CDC is enjoined from enforcing or undertaking to punish, harass, or retaliate against a ship operator for not voluntarily complying with the conditional sailing order, the Dear Colleague Letter, or a later message from CDC directed to a similar end. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 26, 2021.

I find this ruling entirely sensible. CDC, however, is on notice to tread lightly and if they don't you can bet FL's attorneys will be all over them.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.114.0_1.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

Thanks @CGTLH. Your link is to the CDC's "Dear Colleague" letter. This took me to the series of motions by FL and the defendants on the Court Listener page in response to the CDC's letter. #114 is important and I'm quoting the important part and linking the entire ruling on FL's motion below.

The media reported that Merryday did not rule on FL's motion. He did and DEFERRED the ruling. He did not refuse to rule whihc is what news reports implied. The language in Merryday's ruling is important:

Although the injunction prohibits CDC’s enforcing against the identified ships and ship operators a regulation, policy, or the like that exceeds CDC’s statutory authority, Florida’s motion seems, especially in light of assurances offered by CDC’s counsel at today’s hearing, to anticipate a violation that has not occurred and that might not occur. For a time, the disposition of Florida’s motion is DEFERRED. When and if necessary, Florida may renew and supplement the motion, including with additional documentation and affidavits, if CDC either by means of CDC’s Dear Colleague letter, as clarified, or by means of any other agency action violates the injunction, including a violation effected by any pattern of vexatious, harassing, coercive, discriminatory, bad faith, or retaliatory conduct that amounts in effect to CDC’s undertaking to enforce a matter that CDC is enjoined from enforcing or undertaking to punish, harass, or retaliate against a ship operator for not voluntarily complying with the conditional sailing order, the Dear Colleague Letter, or a later message from CDC directed to a similar end. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 26, 2021.

I find this ruling entirely sensible. CDC, however, is on notice to tread lightly and if they don't you can bet FL's attorneys will be all over them.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.114.0_1.pdf

I agree, but it is not clear to me how they can tread lightly.  It would create a whole new round of appeals if they were stopped from exercising powers that are not in question.  I would really like to see what assurances were made in Court.  The specific language of those assertions, in my opinion, should have been included in the order so that the order was clear.  I do not see how any attempt to enforce these rules is not going to be called coercion by Florida or this Judge based on the tone of his orders.  So enforcement of actions within the CDC's powers will likely result in them being ordered not to enforce those rules, resulting in another appeal and even more uncertainty.  Whether or not you like the CSO or the CDC, I think this lawsuit has been and will continue to be harmful to the cruise industry by continuing the  uncertainty and negative publicity for the foreseeable future.  That is why I continue to feel this is an important legal question, but I really wish it had been framed around an issue other than cruising.  My biggest fear is that Florida will win this suit and appeals, ships will relax their rules and there is an outbreak on a ship.  Without the CSO, dealing with that will be more complex, falling back on 42 CFR 71, which could actually allow for the quarantining of the entire ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge Merryday today has approved TX's motion to "intervene" (#26) making them a party to the original FL law suit. If FL prevails in the litigation scheduled to begin on August 12th in Merryday's court, the CSO will be unenforceable on ships sailing from Texas ports too.

What this tells me is that Merryday is signaling that a win by FL in their law suit may not invalidate the CSO in its entirety - only for cruise ships sailing out of FL and TX ports. I don't think that is earth shattering news. If FL prevails the CDC's authority to act in a PHE to the extent they did with the NSO and CSO is going to get restricted in two ways. It may not be restricted by the court's precedent in the matter but most likely by Congressional action to limit their authority going forward.

That's certainly not guaranteed especially in D controlled legislative and executive branches. The precedential nature of a FL win, though, is going to make the CDC and any government agency vulnerable to state governments or businesses seeking injunctions on overly broad and restrictive actions which governments might impose based on a future emergency, PH or otherwise. 

   https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.117.0.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

I agree, but it is not clear to me how they can tread lightly.  It would create a whole new round of appeals if they were stopped from exercising powers that are not in question. 

Sure ...... referring to my statement that the CDCis on notice to "tread lightly," applies only to treading lightly on even the hint that they are trying to pull off an end run by coercing or otherwise enticing the cruise lines to comply with the provisions of the CSO.

On reading that thing and trying to become familiar with the U.S.C. that applies, IMO, what is in question here is the issue of free pratique and exactly by what means and for how long, the CDC can limit it under existing law. It's clear that Judge Merryday thinks the CDC (on the merits of the case) to have exceeded the powers that they were granted by Congress by issuing the CSO. Of course that thought is not final. The CDC could still prevail. Nevertheless and regardless of the outcome of the litigation, I would think that they'll be hesitant going forward to try to duplicate that action in the future.

I think, in retrospect, whatever happens with the litigation and even if FL wins, the maritime law in question is rather narrowly defined. JMO and these are very complex maritime legal issues that I certainly don't claim to be an authority on 

52 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Whether or not you like the CSO or the CDC, I think this lawsuit has been and will continue to be harmful to the cruise industry by continuing the  uncertainty and negative publicity for the foreseeable future.  That is why I continue to feel this is an important legal question, but I really wish it had been framed around an issue other than cruising.  My biggest fear is that Florida will win this suit and appeals, ships will relax their rules and there is an outbreak on a ship.

 My take is that your fears aren't warranted. The background here is that it has become clear to me that the CDC and the cruise lines cooperated in the development of the CSO, bumps along the road notwithstanding - maybe not initially but, as time went on. I think that cooperation will continue. I think that is a good thing. I have issues with the CDC's pandemic messaging. Beyond that, they serve an important public interest.

When I did the side by side comparison of the HSP and CSO last week, my sense was that the CSO was actually the more current set of guidelines, most reflective of the current pandemic circumstances if not from a practical standpoint, it was from a scientific one. The CDC, IMO, wrongly assumed the sneaky, money hungry cruise industry would figure out ways to get around them and to sail their ships as profitably as possible and damn new, complicated and costly health protocols to address SARS2. Based on that faulty assumption that didn't recognize the substantial motivation the cruise industry had to get their health protocols right, the CDC made the CSO enforceable by levying fines for non-compliance. They also shut down the entire cruise industry from operating from US ports with the NSO and hamstrung it's restart with the CSO. Merryday called them on that.

My best guess is that FL will prevail in the end but that is not going to remove the current health protocols implemented so far that have produced a most excellent outcome. They've worked exceedingly well and demonstrated exactly how you contain outbreaks of infectious disease in congregate settings of all types but especially cruise ships. If that continues, and I feel confident it will, cruise ships won't present a question of the need for quarantine of an entire ship if infected people are aboard and upon it's arrival in port going forward. Protocols to deal with infected crew and/or passengers are present and tested. They work. First to prevent outbreaks on board ship (none so far) and second to transport those that are infected off the ship. Using those tested protocols will prevent and have prevented the spread of COVID on cruise ships. Moreover those protocols have protected communities that receive the infected. 

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...