Jump to content
Royal Caribbean Blog

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


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, JeffB said:

The CDC knows the CSO and all that unlawful action contained in it is on life support. They will be very reluctant to continue with it under the howls of protestations if the try to extend it.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is no ruling prior to the expiration of the CSO that right before the expiration the CDC manifests a revised version with eased restrictions and touts that as the conditions with the latest extension...similar to what Merryday was asking them to come back with in his ruling.  Then they can claim they did do something to attempt to compromise to justify an extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, JeffB said:

Dunno .... I posted in another thread that there are plenty of voices pushing back on the larger issue, that includes FL v. Bacerra, on administrative agencies, like HHS, usurping the authority of the legislative branch to make laws that potentially infringe on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms - i.e., the inappropriate powers of an administrative state. 

That is what Merryday said the CDC was doing and slammed them for it in a scathing written opinion.  There are other grievances involving government overreach when it comes to restricting personal freedoms by fiat beyond what the CDC has done.

The political will to reinstate and/or continue significant mitigation measures in the face of a largely manageable (despite what the press says and implies) infectious disease (SARS2) is lacking. We're seeing this lack of political will to do that along with public pressure in the form of protests when local governments try to re-impose closings and restrictions on mobility globally.

In that this is primarily now a pandemic of the unvaccinated, a disease burden being born by the unvaccinated, there will be strong voices in countries with high vax rates arguing that those that have been vaccinated are being curtailed in their personal freedoms by citizens who have declined to receive the vaccines when they are able to do so. This is not a condemnation of those that make that choice. The choice is theirs and I am pro-choice in this matter. It's a rendering of the impact of the mood of the people living in democratic states tired of this thing. Therefore, I feel pretty confident the ground swell of public and political pressure to not re-impose restrictions on our daily lives is going to continue to mount. We're already seeing it. The CDC knows the CSO and all that unlawful action contained in it is on life support. They will be very reluctant to continue with it under the howls of protestations if the try to extend it. JMO, YMMV.  

I agree. If the government tries to implement far reaching mask mandates, even for the vaccinated, they are going to have some really angry people on their hands. As you stated, why are the personal freedoms of those who are vaccinated being questioned along with those who have made the decision not to get vaccinated. I also believe that it is a personal choice on getting vaccinated or not, but as one who is vaccinated I don't think I should be required to mask up again. Having vaccinated individuals wear masks states that the belief is the vaccines don't work, which is completely false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LovetoCruise87 said:

I agree. If the government tries to implement far reaching mask mandates, even for the vaccinated, they are going to have some really angry people on their hands. As you stated, why are the personal freedoms of those who are vaccinated being questioned along with those who have made the decision not to get vaccinated. I also believe that it is a personal choice on getting vaccinated or not, but as one who is vaccinated I don't think I should be required to mask up again. Having vaccinated individuals wear masks states that the belief is the vaccines don't work, which is completely false. 

I don't think it's anyone's role to shame people, although many of them are doing that very well on their own.  However, I do think it's within the governments's role to protect those of us who are vaccinated from the potential danger posed by unvaccinated people.  That is why I think it is within the Government's duty to require unvaccinated people to wear masks.  I am not going to argue "the science" with anyone though.  Whatever study you want to through at me, common sense proves that a mask will reduce the spread of a virus, if you cannot see that, there is nothing I can say to you that will change your mind.  However, if you ever mention the Democrats from Texas on the plane, you automatically loose your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good call @AshleyDillo. It's a possibility........ the pressure point though for the CDC is going to be FL's position re, first, the appeal of the lifting of the stay (to reinstate Merryday's July expiry date for the CSO) ongoing in the 11th Circuit USCOA and next the reality that Merryday ruled that FL won on the merits and then stayed the injunction. FL wants a favorable ruling on this (set aside the lifting of the stay) bad.

There are no defaults for either party, as has been noted previously. There are two ongoing and unresolved court proceedings - one in the 11th Circuit of the USCOA not yet resolved where its removal of the Merryday' stay is being appealed by FL and one yet to be resolved (the original FL Complaint) in the USDC Middle Court of FL (Merryday's court).

Here's how this is going to go down: The 11th Circuit USCOA will consider FL's appeal of the lifting of the stay - there are various options all the way up to the USSC of how this is done that I won't go into but one way or the other that ruling will either stand or be set aside. Whatever the outcome, it really has no bearing on the yet to be resolved FL complaint before Merryday's trial court.

A ruling by the 11th Circuit USCOA that sets aside the lifting of the stay ruling in favor of FL's appeal would however sink the enforceability of the CSO in it's entirety. That is because Merryday's ruling that the CSO becomes recommendations only and is unenforceable stipulates that will happen on July 18th. That date has passed. Therefore his ruling becomes effective immediately.   

Once the appeals court resolves its matters at hand, either way, the FL suit is yet unresolved and Judge Merryday will reconvene to listen to what plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys have to say. At issue is the CDC's failure to submit as Judge Merryday stipulated, "the revised version of the CSO," that you mention. Guess who has the final say on whether or not the revisions submitted by the CDC are acceptable? FLs friend Judge Steven Douglas Merryday. The CDC does not have carte blanch to ride off into the sunset claiming "they did do something."  First, as Merryday demanded, they have to submit a rewrite of the CSO that comports with existing law. Second, it will be up to Merryday if the rewrite is good to go and it's pretty clear he doesn't like the HHS/CDC attorneys who will be presenting the CDC's re-write and arguing their position before him. I think that potential hit for the CDC team has been pointed out too.    

The potential outcomes in the USDC that Merryday is presiding over are this: (1) Merryday lays the hammer on the CDC, tells them to go pack it and the CSO as it is currently written becomes unenforceable recommendations. (2) Merryday accepts a rewrite and it's over. The rewritten CSO that Merryday approved goes into affect

I don't think there is any question that its around 40 to 20 with FL in the lead in the late third quarter and they have one quarter left to score three TDs while holding FL to no points and win. I don't think they can do it. I also don't think there is a worst case scenario for FL. I'd opine that they are in the driver's seat here.

The impact for us cruisers and as it relates to our cruising experiences going forward is about zero.  The outcomes are:  The existing CSO remains in place - something the cruise lines have adapted to and, for the most part, complied with ...... or a potentially better CSO for the cruise lines that they can turn into a better guest experience emerges.

I think the cruise lines have really played this smart. They didn't sit on their hands waiting for the outcome of the FL complaint. They reportedly worked with the CSO to get ships sailing in a way that satisfied the needs of both sides.

The most significant outcome from the Merryday Court's final decision is that either way he decides on the FL claim, irrespective of an appeal by the CDC - and they will appeal -  the CDC is being told in no uncertain terms that it acted unlawfully with both the NSO and the CSO. The net result will be legislative action - exactly where it should be - to curtail the powers of the CDC in a PHE. It was those executive powers, usurped from Congress, that allowed them to wrongly interpret that they had the power to issue the NSO and CSO. They will also face much more stringent oversight of all their powers in a PHE not just those embodied in U.S.C. 42, Section 264 dealing with maritime issues and free pratique.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Whatever study you want to through at me, common sense proves that a mask will reduce the spread of a virus, 

100 % Agree

Its NOT rocket science to understand but people are blinkered by their own agendas

Its been said 100s of times vaccinated can still catch covid 

Its been said 100s of times masks are to PREVENT the spread

Its been said 100s of times some want to sail without vaccine 

Put the 3 together its easy to see WHY face masks are required....

Imagine a ship out of Florida with 90% of the passengers unvaccinated and a guest who has been spreads covid because they dont have to wear masks. 

Wearing a mask isnt about protecting yourself its about thinking about others and having respect for everyone you may come in contact with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ray said:

100 % Agree

Its NOT rocket science to understand but people are blinkered by their own agendas

Its been said 100s of times vaccinated can still catch covid 

Its been said 100s of times masks are to PREVENT the spread

Its been said 100s of times some want to sail without vaccine 

Put the 3 together its easy to see WHY face masks are required....

Imagine a ship out of Florida with 90% of the passengers unvaccinated and a guest who has been spreads covid because they dont have to wear masks. 

Wearing a mask isnt about protecting yourself its about thinking about others and having respect for everyone you may come in contact with.

Not sure I'm following the point you are making .. 

I think you're saying that if we had a whole lot of un-vaccinated people they could get sick ... agreed.

So vaccinated people should be forced to wear masks around un-vaccinated people, in an environment where said un-vaccinated people are paying to be present and also not particularly interested in wearing masks (judging from my conversations with un-vaccinated people on a cruise ship). 

Am I following that correctly ?

My opinion - if you know the risks of being un-vaccinated and choose to accept those risks .. get your bikini on and lets go cruising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, jticarruthers said:

 

My opinion - if you know the risks of being un-vaccinated and choose to accept those risks .. get your bikini on and lets go cruising.

Now its common Knowledge that the unvaccinated are more likely to catch covid than the vaccinated,the seriousness of any virus obviously depends on the health of the individual. But lets say on a ship with 90% unvaccinated and an outbreak occurs because that 90 % for whatever reason have decided against the vaccine, what happens to the 10% vaccinateds cruise? Cut short? Loss of money for flights etc? 

CDC comes down hard again? 

Its a mask! Do i like wearing it? No!! But i look at the bigger picture! England has dropped all regulations and cases and deaths are rising ( highest numbers since January) more cases means our hospitals are overwhelmed again thus resulting in people requiring non covid ops having to wait. 

Now yes everyone has a choice get vaccinated or not but every company or government has the same choice in what they decide to do with regards wearing masks, said from day 1 whatever the rules are you follow them and if you aint happy you dont go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ray said:

Now its common Knowledge that the unvaccinated are more likely to catch covid than the vaccinated,the seriousness of any virus obviously depends on the health of the individual. But lets say on a ship with 90% unvaccinated and an outbreak occurs because that 90 % for whatever reason have decided against the vaccine, what happens to the 10% vaccinateds cruise? Cut short? Loss of money for flights etc? 

CDC comes down hard again? 

Its a mask! Do i like wearing it? No!! But i look at the bigger picture! England has dropped all regulations and cases and deaths are rising ( highest numbers since January) more cases means our hospitals are overwhelmed again thus resulting in people requiring non covid ops having to wait. 

Now yes everyone has a choice get vaccinated or not but every company or government has the same choice in what they decide to do with regards wearing masks, said from day 1 whatever the rules are you follow them and if you aint happy you dont go.

this goes both ways tho, what about the young and healthy who can sail safely? why do they have to abide by guidelines for the unhealthy and more at risk. its like making all skinny people lose weight because all the fat people have to and its only fair the skinny people have to as well because science says its more healthy to

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JeffB said:

Good call @AshleyDillo. It's a possibility........ the pressure point though for the CDC is going to be FL's position re, first, the appeal of the lifting of the stay (to reinstate Merryday's July expiry date for the CSO) ongoing in the 11th Circuit USCOA and next the reality that Merryday ruled that FL won on the merits and then stayed the injunction. FL wants a favorable ruling on this (set aside the lifting of the stay) bad.

There are no defaults for either party, as has been noted previously. There are two ongoing and unresolved court proceedings - one in the 11th Circuit of the USCOA not yet resolved where its removal of the Merryday' stay is being appealed by FL and one yet to be resolved (the original FL Complaint) in the USDC Middle Court of FL (Merryday's court).

Here's how this is going to go down: The 11th Circuit USCOA will consider FL's appeal of the lifting of the stay - there are various options all the way up to the USSC of how this is done that I won't go into but one way or the other that ruling will either stand or be set aside. Whatever the outcome, it really has no bearing on the yet to be resolved FL complaint before Merryday's trial court.

A ruling by the 11th Circuit USCOA that sets aside the lifting of the stay ruling in favor of FL's appeal would however sink the enforceability of the CSO in it's entirety. That is because Merryday's ruling that the CSO becomes recommendations only and is unenforceable stipulates that will happen on July 18th. That date has passed. Therefore his ruling becomes effective immediately.   

Once the appeals court resolves its matters at hand, either way, the FL suit is yet unresolved and Judge Merryday will reconvene to listen to what plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys have to say. At issue is the CDC's failure to submit as Judge Merryday stipulated, "the revised version of the CSO," that you mention. Guess who has the final say on whether or not the revisions submitted by the CDC are acceptable? FLs friend Judge Steven Douglas Merryday. The CDC does not have carte blanch to ride off into the sunset claiming "they did do something."  First, as Merryday demanded, they have to submit a rewrite of the CSO that comports with existing law. Second, it will be up to Merryday if the rewrite is good to go and it's pretty clear he doesn't like the HHS/CDC attorneys who will be presenting the CDC's re-write and arguing their position before him. I think that potential hit for the CDC team has been pointed out too.    

The potential outcomes in the USDC that Merryday is presiding over are this: (1) Merryday lays the hammer on the CDC, tells them to go pack it and the CSO as it is currently written becomes unenforceable recommendations. (2) Merryday accepts a rewrite and it's over. The rewritten CSO that Merryday approved goes into affect

I don't think there is any question that its around 40 to 20 with FL in the lead in the late third quarter and they have one quarter left to score three TDs while holding FL to no points and win. I don't think they can do it. I also don't think there is a worst case scenario for FL. I'd opine that they are in the driver's seat here.

The impact for us cruisers and as it relates to our cruising experiences going forward is about zero.  The outcomes are:  The existing CSO remains in place - something the cruise lines have adapted to and, for the most part, complied with ...... or a potentially better CSO for the cruise lines that they can turn into a better guest experience emerges.

I think the cruise lines have really played this smart. They didn't sit on their hands waiting for the outcome of the FL complaint. They reportedly worked with the CSO to get ships sailing in a way that satisfied the needs of both sides.

The most significant outcome from the Merryday Court's final decision is that either way he decides on the FL claim, irrespective of an appeal by the CDC - and they will appeal -  the CDC is being told in no uncertain terms that it acted unlawfully with both the NSO and the CSO. The net result will be legislative action - exactly where it should be - to curtail the powers of the CDC in a PHE. It was those executive powers, usurped from Congress, that allowed them to wrongly interpret that they had the power to issue the NSO and CSO. They will also face much more stringent oversight of all their powers in a PHE not just those embodied in U.S.C. 42, Section 264 dealing with maritime issues and free pratique.    

The issue is that if he finds that the CDC overstepped it's authority in this instance, it will limit it in all areas, and such a ruling may have far reaching effects on many other agencies with similarly worded enabling legislation.  I do not believe the Judge has the authority to order the CDC to revise the CSO.  The actual question before him is whether or not they have the authority to issue the one that they did.  He wanted them to voluntarily submit a new one for his approval.  If they had done that, they would have ceded their authority to him forever.  I seriously doubt they would ever do that,  and if they did, his authority to do that would immediately be challenged by someone.  I agree that the result would have to be new legislation, but in today's environment I doubt anything could be passed, thus leaving a vacuum in the space formerly occupied by the CDC.  I don't think that would be a good thing.  If he wanted to do that, I would hope he would use the practicality used by the Supreme Court in the eviction situation, which would leave them in control until new legislation is passed to clarify their powers.  I think that would limit the possible harm such a ruling would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Matt said:

This thread is about discussing the CDC's stay of the injunction. Not the place to be debating vaccines or masks.

Sorry.  I stopped.  Please forgive me oh mighty sailor and controller of these very civil threads, as opposed to that other dark place.  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Sorry.  I stopped.  Please forgive me oh mighty sailor and controller of these very civil threads, as opposed to that other dark place.  ?

Your post is a fair one. It's on topic re the courts so I'll respond and let the chips fall where they may:

TBC, Judge Merryday absolutely has the authority to tell the CDC to "submit" a re-write. I didn't use order but even then pretty sure he can do that too. In his courtroom he has sweeping powers. Can he put someone in jail on the spot for say, contempt? Without a hearing, without due process? You bet he can. Asking the CDC to rewrite and resubmit their crappy CSO is several rungs up the ladder of easy for him to do.

I also find it hard to understand that you didn't see that my concluding paragraphs speak exactly to your concerns about a "harm" that might come if Merryday rules against the CDC. I can imagine no harm that is done by this. In fact, I can imagine a ton of good. You may disagree and that's fine with me.

What good that I think is at stake in all of this, and why Federal Judges are probably looking at this entire case very closely, is that it DOES have the potential to curtail the creeping administrative state this Republic has become and produced what I consider to be the unlawful NSO and CSO. Shutting down an entire industry - in this case the cruise lines - because the CDC knee-jerked into doing something that looked good? Come on. Please. 

  • A win for FL will have sweeping precedential effect beyond the narrow scope of the 5 parts of FL's claim.
  • The CDC is in the cross hairs where a FL win will take away the authority of HHS and CDC administrators to make quasi laws that don't comport with the powers granted to them by Congress and/or impinge on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms - even in a PHE.
  • A win for FL will reestablish a strong precedent that will apply to the entire spectrum of Federal agencies that have grown bloated and more powerful and presently their policy makers have no accountability to the voters. The forefathers are likely turning over in their graves and have been for several decades.
  • A FL win will reestablish both proper oversight of such Federal agencies and prohibit further law making usurped by any of them restoring it back to Congress where it belongs  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

Your post is a fair one. It's on topic re the courts so I'll respond and let the chips fall where they may:

TBC, Judge Merryday absolutely has the authority to tell the CDC to "submit" a re-write. I didn't use order but even then pretty sure he can do that too. In his courtroom he has sweeping powers. Can he put someone in jail on the spot for say, contempt? Without a hearing, without due process? You bet he can. Asking the CDC to rewrite and resubmit their crappy CSO is several rungs up the ladder of easy for him to do.

I also find it hard to understand that you didn't see that my concluding paragraphs speak exactly to your concerns about a "harm" that might come if Merryday rules against the CDC. I can imagine no harm that is done by this. In fact, I can imagine a ton of good. You may disagree and that's fine with me.

What good that I think is at stake in all of this, and why Federal Judges are probably looking at this entire case very closely, is that it DOES have the potential to curtail the creeping administrative state this Republic has become and produced what I consider to be the unlawful NSO and CSO. Shutting down an entire industry - in this case the cruise lines - because the CDC knee-jerked into doing something that looked good? Come on. Please. 

  • A win for FL will have sweeping precedential effect beyond the narrow scope of the 5 parts of FL's claim.
  • The CDC is in the cross hairs where a FL win will take away the authority of HHS and CDC administrators to make quasi laws that don't comport with the powers granted to them by Congress and/or impinge on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms - even in a PHE.
  • A win for FL will reestablish a strong precedent that will apply to the entire spectrum of Federal agencies that have grown bloated and more powerful and presently their policy makers have no accountability to the voters. The forefathers are likely turning over in their graves and have been for several decades.
  • A FL win will reestablish both proper oversight of such Federal agencies and prohibit further law making usurped by any of them restoring it back to Congress where it belongs  

That was for my earlier posts.  Yes, I read it, but once I get going on a rant, I sometimes forget where I meant to go.  You say the same thing, but better than I did.  I understand that as a Federal Judge can do anything.  As I always ask:  Do you know the difference between a Feferal Judge and God?  No? Neither does a Federal Judge.  My point is that he really should decide the question before him.  Either they exceeded their authority or they did not.  Otherwise he would be taking oversight authority on the CDC's rules.  Once that happens, it really does take an act of congress to take it back, and sometimes they like throwing the ball to a Judge so he can take any blame, so they create rules that give Judges oversite authority on subjects I think they shouldn't be deciding.  I think the argument regarding the scope and depth of Federal authority has been debated since the founding of the country, and certainly since Gibbons v. Ogden, it has been expanding.  Maybe this is the case to start restricting it.  I don't know.  My honest feeling is that this is neither the subject matter over which  or time to start changing things.  Decisions made in the face of unique situations, like COVID, many times end up with many unintended consequences.  Bad facts make bad law.  Further, with our Government so divided, I am afraid that any correcting legislation would be almost impossible at this point, I am afraid that many areas would be left unattended so to speak, with no one having clear authority over certain issues.  If I have said the same thing earlier in this thread, I apologize.  I am having basically this same discussion in many different places.  No, I'm not sure exactly why either, but since I don't practice law anymore, sometimes I enjoy screeching those legal muscles that I've stopped using.  This past year has provided an amazing number of opportunities, but far too often they dissolve into the "Yeah?  So's your old man!" level.  So I enjoy discussing it here.

 

Oh, and in my view there really is no difference if a Federal Judge requests you to submit something or orders it.  In this case, he didn't request that they submit something, just gave them the opportunity.  I think that they would have been crazy to voluntarily submit something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok of this goes up the chain to the SCOTUS, and they find that the order is unconstitutional, aka the CDC overstepped it bounds, would that mean that the order would be removed in total and all states would be released from the CSO even if they were in the lawsuit or not? Just theoretical thinking .. lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Justwanttocruise said:

ok of this goes up the chain to the SCOTUS, and they find that the order is unconstitutional, aka the CDC overstepped it bounds, would that mean that the order would be removed in total and all states would be released from the CSO even if they were in the lawsuit or not? Just theoretical thinking .. lol 

Don't confuse the relief sought in the preliminary injunction (i.e., it only affecting Florida sailings) from what might be the end result of the suit (invalidating the CSO entirely, or some other result).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Justwanttocruise said:

ok of this goes up the chain to the SCOTUS, and they find that the order is unconstitutional, aka the CDC overstepped it bounds, would that mean that the order would be removed in total and all states would be released from the CSO even if they were in the lawsuit or not? Just theoretical thinking .. lol 

My take is close but a bit different than @dswallow. I believe the correct way to phrase this is FL's suit filed in April with the Middle Court of FL was based on 5 claims. The law suit asked the court to enjoin the CSO, Merryday heard oral arguments, allowed that FL won on the merits then stayed the requested injunction pending submission of a re-write of the CSO by the CDC for his approval. CDC didn't do that and instead filed an appeal of the Merryday ruling with the Merryday court and it was referred to the 11th USCOA. The 11th USCOA voted 2-1 to stay the Merryday injunction (and the requirement to submit a re-write of the CSO). FL then appealed. That appeal is pending a review by either the full panel of judges that sit on the USCOA or SCOTUS. A "preliminary injunction" is an injunction that may be granted before or during trial, with the goal of preserving the status quo before final judgment. Back to the question at hand .....  

As I understand where things stand, a ruling in favor of FL in Judge Merryday's trial court (Middle District Court of FL) will only provide relief in the form of an injunction against HHS/CDC preventing them from enforcing any provisions of the CSO within the state of FL. Alaska initially filed a motion to join FL's law suit but withdrew it when their legal team was concerned about the threat that the CDC made that a win (enjoining the CSO) would upset the applecart with respect to the bill passed by Congress and signed by the President that authorized ships to sail from US ports, through Canadian waters, without stopping in a Canadian port (required in the ancient Jones Act). That's a convoluted outcome that I won't go into.

TX filed a motion to join the FL suit also. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/26/state-of-florida-v-becerra/ The decision on that motion was referred to a Magistrate Court. As far as I know, it was approved. TX alleged that it had different interests than FL (technical in nature involving the process of opening Texas ports compared to FL ports but they are still seeking relief from the CSO)  so, I suspect they had to list those before the magistrate. I'm assuming those were approved. The net result therefore is that if Merryday rules in favor of FL, whatever interests TX listed in it's motion to join and whatever they are seeking as relief (I assume it is enjoining the CSO) would apply to TX as well.

But that's it. TX and FL. To my knowledge no other ports or states have filed motions to join and they would have to do that to get immediate relief from the CSO and at the same time FL gained it. I would think a state that wanted to be relieved from compliance with the CSO could file to get it based on FL obtaining a win in their law suit after the fact but I'm not sure about that.  

What I have stressed in my posts on this topic is that a win by FL (and TX by joining) will have little impact on our cruise experiences from FL or TX ports. There will be no impact whatsoever on the other ports that RCL is sailing from. The CSO will apply, the two pathways to resume sailings will remain, the reporting and contract requirements will continue. That the cruise lines have basically complied with the CSO and some have already started sailings from US ports under the provisions of the CSO,  as cruisers we may see some tweaks to our onboard experience but I think the greatest relief is for the onerous contract and reporting requirements that the lines have to deal with.

I actually believe that in some form even without the CSO cruise lines would have done training sailings to work through the HSP protocols that the lines voluntarily implemented aboard ship before restarting revenue sailings. I also don't think things would have moved along any quicker than they have. 

To me, and I've posted this, a FL win strikes a blow to the concept of the administrative state that the US has dangerously become.  As in the actions of HHS/CDC in issuing the NSO/CSO an executive agency of the US government, unaccountable to anyone including voters, made quasi laws usurping law making authority from the Congress, executive agencies besides HHS/CDC have done likewise. That needs to be curtailed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, JeffB said:

My take is close but a bit different than @dswallow. I believe the correct way to phrase this is FL's suit filed in April with the Middle Court of FL was based on 5 claims. The law suit asked the court to enjoin the CSO, Merryday heard oral arguments, allowed that FL won on the merits then stayed the requested injunction pending submission of a re-write of the CSO by the CDC for his approval. CDC didn't do that and instead filed an appeal of the Merryday ruling with the Merryday court and it was referred to the 11th USCOA. The 11th USCOA voted 2-1 to stay the Merryday injunction (and the requirement to submit a re-write of the CSO). FL then appealed. That appeal is pending a review by either the full panel of judges that sit on the USCOA or SCOTUS. A "preliminary injunction" is an injunction that may be granted before or during trial, with the goal of preserving the status quo before final judgment. Back to the question at hand .....  

As I understand where things stand, a ruling in favor of FL in Judge Merryday's trial court (Middle District Court of FL) will only provide relief in the form of an injunction against HHS/CDC preventing them from enforcing any provisions of the CSO within the state of FL. Alaska initially filed a motion to join FL's law suit but withdrew it when their legal team was concerned about the threat that the CDC made that a win (enjoining the CSO) would upset the applecart with respect to the bill passed by Congress and signed by the President that authorized ships to sail from US ports, through Canadian waters, without stopping in a Canadian port (required in the ancient Jones Act). That's a convoluted outcome that I won't go into.

TX filed a motion to join the FL suit also. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/26/state-of-florida-v-becerra/ The decision on that motion was referred to a Magistrate Court. As far as I know, it was approved. TX alleged that it had different interests than FL (technical in nature involving the process of opening Texas ports compared to FL ports but they are still seeking relief from the CSO)  so, I suspect they had to list those before the magistrate. I'm assuming those were approved. The net result therefore is that if Merryday rules in favor of FL, whatever interests TX listed in it's motion to join and whatever they are seeking as relief (I assume it is enjoining the CSO) would apply to TX as well.

But that's it. TX and FL. To my knowledge no other ports or states have filed motions to join and they would have to do that to get immediate relief from the CSO and at the same time FL gained it. I would think a state that wanted to be relieved from compliance with the CSO could file to get it based on FL obtaining a win in their law suit after the fact but I'm not sure about that.  

What I have stressed in my posts on this topic is that a win by FL (and TX by joining) will have little impact on our cruise experiences from FL or TX ports. There will be no impact whatsoever on the other ports that RCL is sailing from. The CSO will apply, the two pathways to resume sailings will remain, the reporting and contract requirements will continue. That the cruise lines have basically complied with the CSO and some have already started sailings from US ports under the provisions of the CSO,  as cruisers we may see some tweaks to our onboard experience but I think the greatest relief is for the onerous contract and reporting requirements that the lines have to deal with.

I actually believe that in some form even without the CSO cruise lines would have done training sailings to work through the HSP protocols that the lines voluntarily implemented aboard ship before restarting revenue sailings. I also don't think things would have moved along any quicker than they have. 

To me, and I've posted this, a FL win strikes a blow to the concept of the administrative state that the US has dangerously become.  As in the actions of HHS/CDC in issuing the NSO/CSO an executive agency of the US government, unaccountable to anyone including voters, made quasi laws usurping law making authority from the Congress, executive agencies besides HHS/CDC have done likewise. That needs to be curtailed. 

There has been no hearing and no argument related to the lawsuit; everything has been specific to the motion for Preliminary Injunction. Arguments on the merits of the original case aren't due to begin yet. The defendant doesn't even have to file the reply to it until August 12.

Florida submitted the preliminary junction they wanted to have, and that's the only place in which it's limited to Florida. And while opinions have been expressed on the case, the case hasn't yet progressed. The only thing that has progressed is action on the preliminary injunction, and right now, that's in Florida's loss column. But still has nothing to do with the case progressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vague: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.107.0.pdf

The appellants’ “Time-Sensitive Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Administrative Stay” is DENIED because appellants failed to demonstrate an entitlement to a stay pending appeal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...