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

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...