Jump to content

US Appeals court lifts CDC cruise ship restrictions in win for florida


Recommended Posts

US Court of Appeals votes to stay judge's decision ruling that CDC cannot enforce COVID cruise ship rules after July 18

 

“A federal court voted to stay a judge's decision ruling that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cannot enforce COVID-19 cruise ship rules after July 18.

The CDC win came after the state of Florida had sued the agency claiming that its restrictions on the cruise industry during the pandemic effectively blocked most cruises - harming the state's livelihood.”

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9799441/Court-stays-judges-ruling-CDC-enforce-COVID-cruise-ship-rules-July-18.html
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ChrisK2793 changed the title to US Court of Appeals votes to stay judge's decision ruling that CDC cannot enforce COVID cruise ship rules after July 18
13 minutes ago, PG Cruiser said:

What does it mean "to stay"? (Sorry, English is not my native language and I don't know much about court jargon)


It means that the original judge’s ruling that the CDC overstepped their authority and that their orders would only be recommendations after today (July 18) has been stopped from happening pending the CDC’s appeal.  It now means that if this case takes years to get to the Supreme Court, the CDC will be able to dictate and control what the cruise lines do for the entire time ….. unless the Supreme Court reverses the appeals court’s current stay and puts the original judge’s order back in effect pending appeal ……. Which most likely won’t happen.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the CDC’s point of view:

"The undisputed evidence shows that unregulated cruise ship operations would exacerbate the spread of COVID-19, and that the harm to the public that would result from such operations cannot be undone."

1. Why do they act as though the cruise lines will just go wide open, abandon all protocols, and not self-regulate?

2. When are they gonna stop using the Diamond Princess example from 18 MONTHS AGO as evidence of “unregulated cruise ship operations”? No one had ANY protocols or mitigation measures at that time. It is NOT a fair comparison!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, teddy said:

That judge has apparently never been in a grocery store since March of 2020

Come spend a day in my boots xxxxxxx then tell me how cruising is more of a threat. 


I’m willing to bet out of the 3 Eleventh Circuit Court judges randomly chosen to be on the panel who made this decision ….. that the 2 who voted in favor of allowing the CDC to continue screwing with the cruise lines were originally appointed to the court by either Obama, Clinton, or Bush and the 1 who voted against the CDC was a Trump court appointee.  
 

 

B593790C-AA1E-4236-9628-419BE0F0A7C7.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back last night from an 8n Celebrity Apex cruise from Athens Greece. We sailed on the 4th sailing of Apex from Athens that started in late June. The 4 cruises have had 300, 500, 600 and 800+ pax respectively. Staff aboard Apex I spoke with think Apex will be at full capacity (around 3K guests) by October. Celebrity sailings from Greece don't have to deal with the CSO or FL vaccine bans. Viral prevalence is low in Greece, though trending up in terms of new cases but not in terms of hospitalizations and deaths. That's the trend just about everywhere. There are rising vax rates in Greece (overall, around 35% and climbing, ahead of the EU average. >65% in over 65s). Greece has been open to tourism since June of last year (with restrictions) and since May 15th of this year with most restrictions removed. You have to be vaxed to enter the country. 100% of crew and 99% of passengers were vaccinated. 

No surprise, somewhere around 2000 passengers have sailed on Apex since it's first sailing in Late June without a single COVID+ test as far as I know. (they are administered by an agency hired by Celebrity to perform the rapid antigen tests before you board and the day before you debark). Celebrity is trumpeting this and rightfully so. Greece appears to be a trend setter globally in how to help the travel and leisure sector recover. 

My point is that in light of the industry's mostly uniform implementation of the HSP's recommendations the CSO is an unnecessary burden on the cruise industry with questionable benefits and significant costs. But that is not the most important point to be made here and is now irrelevant. Arguing about the effectiveness or appropriateness of the CSO and CDC's role in regulating health and safety policies on cruise ships has been beaten to death. No longer worth the key strokes or time. I've not seen or read the US COA's 2-1 ruling to reverse Merryday's refusal to stay but I think there is a fundamental view among the consenting judges that looks like this:

The implications of setting the precedent Merryday would establish if his ruling stands is a precedent setting matter of complex maritime law better left to Congress to sort out going forward. I personally think this will happen in the aftermath of the pandemic so, I'm sanguine about both this US COA ruling and the apparent agreement from what are probably liberal US COA judges with a tendency to grant government more and more power over our lives. There is strong support across the isle to implement better oversight over both executive and CDC actions in a PHE. Its likely that the US Congress will effectively establish limits to executive (the president and other executive branches of government (HHS/CDC) authority to prevent the spread of communicable disease. Even though the ongoing legal action by the state of FL involves the narrow context of U.S.C 42, section 264 (denying free pratique where the CDC concludes allowing it presents a threat to the pH), ruliong in favor of FL would have wide implications in case law. IOW the US COA judges aren't saying either party's arguments are wrong. It is saying we don't think it is the place of the courts to make or change the law (interpret is another thing so there is some hair splitting here).

What's the impact? Nothing really. The industry has more or less gone along with the CSO for restarts from US ports. It's now baked in to their restart plans.. The legality of FL vaccine passport concept ban, when it is resolved in the coming days (or weeks) by the filing of the NCL suit alleging it is unconstitutional (probably) and wrongly trumps appropriate federal authority of the EEOC (that it does isn't debatable, except in Ron Desanti's mind)), will have an impact. 

As long as we don't have an over-reaction by PH policy makers to the upward trends in new cases in the US and abroad, ameliorated by steady hospitalizations and deaths, normalcy will return to cruising ...... with minor inconveniences in US state's and foreign ports involving ship-board COVID mitigation measures, e.g., masks indoors. There will be exceptions where countries like Japan (and other Asian sovereigns), Australia, NZ are pursing zero COVID through lock-down strategies.  Still, there's a definite global trend toward "learning to live with SARS2." I call it an accommodative approach. There are sill loud voices calling for elimination strategies and these are not without basis. Australia is a good example where geography makes it a reasonable approach.

Here's the thing: the pandemic will take one of two courses. (1) it will run out of places on the spike protein to mutate and will self extinguish, (2) it will find reservoirs of unvaccinated and/or naïve hosts, continue to  mutate into more problematic forms and be more than a seasonal nuisance like influenza presently is. We don't have  enough data yet to definitively say which of the two pathways SARS2 will travel down. I can make a good argument for caution but only involving PH policies that correctly balance costs of implementation with PH benefits derived therefrom.

Happy cruising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, ChrisK2793 said:

I’m willing to bet out of the 3 Eleventh Circuit Court judges randomly chosen to be on the panel who made this decision ….. that the 2 who voted in favor of allowing the CDC to continue screwing with the cruise lines were originally appointed to the court by either Obama, Clinton, or Bush and the 1 who voted against the CDC was a Trump court appointee.  

Charles Wilson: Bill Clinton (1999)
Jill Pryor: Barack Obama (2014)
Elizabeth L. Branch: Donald Trump (2018)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for looking this up @CGTLH. In revealing the US COA's likely political leanings, one can see why this case and subsequent opinions by involved federal judges highlights political trends in the US either toward or away from government control of who we are and what we can do. The long term outcomes will definately affect the cruise industry operations from US ports.

The debate is not black and white say, for example, it's not only about powerful, liberal authoritarian governance v. Laissez-faire conservatism. For reasonable conservatives it is more about how much regulatory authority is necessary to promote the public's interest. For reasonable liberals it is about the positive role that government can play in obtaining equity and justice. Both sides have good arguments.

As I have opined, the immediate and short term outcome of the FL law suit will have little impact on cruising (the short term outcome of the NCL suit will). It's the long range trends in either a liberal view of expanding government authority in the public's best interests or a conservative view of not limiting or restraining what government, in the form of the HHS/CDC, can regulate (or over-regulate) the cruise industry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.  It may well continue on a 2 track course, with the Trial Court continuing to proceed while the Appeal also proceeds, or the focus may shift to the Appeal and the Trial Court proceedings slow down.   If the Trial Court were to procced to a final judgement, it would make this appeal moot, and start a whole new process.  The other option is to allow the appeal to continue to get an idea of how the Court of Appeals feels about the issues.  I know a lot of you do not agree with me, but I think this is a win for the cruise lines at this point.  They can continue with the plans they had made based on the CDC's rules, they keep a level playing field for all the companies, and they can blame everything on the big bad CDC, even if it is protocols that they would have enforced under the HSP guidelines.  I own a small business, and it was a lot less complicated when I wasn't the one deciding what rules to have.  I promise you, it's better to have someone else to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

The other option is to allow the appeal to continue to get an idea of how the Court of Appeals feels about the issues.

I think we have a glimpse of FL's position on this. On Friday last, the CDC filed a request for an extension of the date required for their response to the Trial Court (Merryday's domain). The new deadline for the CDC's response would now be delayed until August 12th. The CSO, as per Merryday's ruling, therefore did not expire today. FL did not contest the request and it was granted. The CSO is still in effect.

That leads me to believe FL wants to know how the US COA feels about the CDC's case. The liberal US COA court make-up leads me to believe they support the CDC's arguments to uphold that the CSO is lawful and within their authority to act in a PHE. IOW, this court is more likely to favor a liberal view of government authority (I agree with FL's position that its overreach) to protect PH interests. The US COA's written ruling is not yet in the public domain. I doubt FL's lawyers have had a chance to look at it either.  

I'd expect that after a careful read of the US COA's written ruling, if FL thinks the US COA is likely to side with the CDC in any appeal of the trial court's (Merryday's) final ruling, i.e., reverse it assuming Merryday will shoot down the CDC's rewrite of the CSO and the CDC will again appeal that ruling, FL may negotiate with the CDC (arbitration). If FL thinks that the US COA will send any further CDC appeals back to Merryday's court, essentially gut punching the CDC, they won't negotiate and will go for the walk-off homerun against the CDC.

I think the trends in the USSC are instructive, Among that court's conservative judges, they nevertheless have made rulings this summer that are clearly based on liberal interpretations of the law. That the US COA seems to be more liberal, one would hope that the dissenting conservative judge may have some influence over the two liberal judges. But, I agree with @MrMarc, the outcome and now this thing tracks is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JeffB said:

I think we have a glimpse of FL's position on this. On Friday last, the CDC filed a request for an extension of the date required for their response to the Trial Court (Merryday's domain). The new deadline for the CDC's response would now be delayed until August 12th. The CSO, as per Merryday's ruling, therefore did not expire today. FL did not contest the request and it was granted. The CSO is still in effect.

That leads me to believe FL wants to know how the US COA feels about the CDC's case. The liberal US COA court make-up leads me to believe they support the CDC's arguments to uphold that the CSO is lawful and within their authority to act in a PHE. IOW, this court is more likely to favor a liberal view of government authority (I agree with FL's position that its overreach) to protect PH interests. The US COA's written ruling is not yet in the public domain. I doubt FL's lawyers have had a chance to look at it either.  

I'd expect that after a careful read of the US COA's written ruling, if FL thinks the US COA is likely to side with the CDC in any appeal of the trial court's (Merryday's) final ruling, i.e., reverse it assuming Merryday will shoot down the CDC's rewrite of the CSO and the CDC will again appeal that ruling, FL may negotiate with the CDC (arbitration). If FL thinks that the US COA will send any further CDC appeals back to Merryday's court, essentially gut punching the CDC, they won't negotiate and will go for the walk-off homerun against the CDC.

I think the trends in the USSC are instructive, Among that court's conservative judges, they nevertheless have made rulings this summer that are clearly based on liberal interpretations of the law. That the US COA seems to be more liberal, one would hope that the dissenting conservative judge may have some influence over the two liberal judges. But, I agree with @MrMarc, the outcome and now this thing tracks is interesting.

I agree, except the CDC did no request that the Stay be delayed, and the order did not say it was, so i believe it would have gone into effect today.  I'm surprised that they didn't rule Friday.  Considering that the SC left the eviction issue remain in place until it's previously planned end tells me that even if they are inclined to find the CDC overstepped it's authority, it would let it stay in place at least until November, since as a practical matter, like in the eviction case, those are the rules that everyone has been playing by and planning on,   I am still concerned that decisions like this that will have broad effects on the way the CDC and possibly other agencies empowered by legislation might have, I wish the issue at the heart of the case was something much more substantial than cruising.  I like to cruise, but it not exactly a critical issue in the grand scheme of things.  Even if the cruise lines went bankrupt, it would not have a devastating effect on our society or our economy.  And these cases truly have nothing to do with cruising, they are political disagreements as to the role of Government and by extension Government Agencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, cruisinghawg said:

yep (in response to @smokeybanditpost saying we'll have the CSO well inot 2022)

And, so what. As I posted up thread, the CSO is now baked in to restarts from US ports. The lines are adapting to health care policies in foreign ports. These seem, for the most part, more or less mirroring the US CDC's guidance via the CSO.

What's important in regards to that is that the lines have almost uniformly adopted the provisions of the HSP and have clearly demonstrated those recommendations are kicking COVID's ass. Sure, they aren't making cruising risk free wrt infectious disease and the highly transmissible variants of SARS2 but what the lines are doing is reducing the risk of bad outcomes aboard all cruise ships (ala, the Princes Cruises, Diamond Princess of 2020). From the record, I'd say the risk of a really bad COVID related outcome on cruise ships following HSP (and I'll reluctantly add CDC's) guidelines and recommendations is about zero

What's important to watch from here on out is how the various involved judges/courts rule on FL's initial claim of unlawful government over reach by HHS/CDC. I have no gut feeling of the outcome. Tough one to all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, JeffB said:

I think we have a glimpse of FL's position on this. On Friday last, the CDC filed a request for an extension of the date required for their response to the Trial Court (Merryday's domain). The new deadline for the CDC's response would now be delayed until August 12th. The CSO, as per Merryday's ruling, therefore did not expire today. FL did not contest the request and it was granted. The CSO is still in effect.

That leads me to believe FL wants to know how the US COA feels about the CDC's case. The liberal US COA court make-up leads me to believe they support the CDC's arguments to uphold that the CSO is lawful and within their authority to act in a PHE. IOW, this court is more likely to favor a liberal view of government authority (I agree with FL's position that its overreach) to protect PH interests. The US COA's written ruling is not yet in the public domain. I doubt FL's lawyers have had a chance to look at it either.  

I'd expect that after a careful read of the US COA's written ruling, if FL thinks the US COA is likely to side with the CDC in any appeal of the trial court's (Merryday's) final ruling, i.e., reverse it assuming Merryday will shoot down the CDC's rewrite of the CSO and the CDC will again appeal that ruling, FL may negotiate with the CDC (arbitration). If FL thinks that the US COA will send any further CDC appeals back to Merryday's court, essentially gut punching the CDC, they won't negotiate and will go for the walk-off homerun against the CDC.

I think the trends in the USSC are instructive, Among that court's conservative judges, they nevertheless have made rulings this summer that are clearly based on liberal interpretations of the law. That the US COA seems to be more liberal, one would hope that the dissenting conservative judge may have some influence over the two liberal judges. But, I agree with @MrMarc, the outcome and now this thing tracks is interesting.

Not sure why the CDC would negotiate at this point.  The CSO remains in effect and they're fairly likely to get a written COA opinion in a few weeks endorsing a tremendous expansion of their power.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...