Alaska is suing the CDC too

[mightycruisequeen]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alaska-to-join-florida-in-suing-the-cdc-for-its-job-killing-pause-on-the-us-cruise-industry/ar-BB1fTA0T

 

[ontheweb]

28 minutes ago, mightycruisequeen said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alaska-to-join-florida-in-suing-the-cdc-for-its-job-killing-pause-on-the-us-cruise-industry/ar-BB1fTA0T

 

Are they also suing Canada for not allowing stops in Canada that would fulfill ship's PVSA requirements?

[mightycruisequeen]

51 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Are they also suing Canada for not allowing stops in Canada that would fulfill ship's PVSA requirements?

No, they're trying to enact legislation to suspend the PVSA for one year, so as to bypass Canada completely, (although I'm pretty sure you asked that question with tongue in cheek).

 

[1ANGELCAT]

1 hour ago, mightycruisequeen said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alaska-to-join-florida-in-suing-the-cdc-for-its-job-killing-pause-on-the-us-cruise-industry/ar-BB1fTA0T

 

I posted this yesterday on the CDC pushback thread.

[mightycruisequeen]

1 minute ago, 1ANGELCAT said:

I posted this yesterday on the CDC pushback thread.

Sorry, I must have missed that.  Maybe the mods will remove this thread, but they probably won't, since there are already so many threads about this Covid mess.

[rkacruiser]

And like the Florida suit, this one will go into legal la la land forever and forever.  It will not make any significant difference in when and where cruising will begin.  But, it promises to be a waste of the taxpayers monies of those States' citizens whose Attorney Generals have filed such suits.  

[ontheweb]

15 hours ago, mightycruisequeen said:

No, they're trying to enact legislation to suspend the PVSA for one year, so as to bypass Canada completely, (although I'm pretty sure you asked that question with tongue in cheek).

 

First lawsuits are not about enacting legislation. Legislation is not going to be enacted as there are much larger priorities than cruises facing the USA. And there is such a level of partisanship that our legislators will not even back the normal noncontroversial stuff like renaming a post office if it is sponsored by a representative from the other party. And these bills only sponsored by minority party members are going nowhere. People posting in these forums may very well think that restarting cruises is a huge priority, but they are far from  representative of the population at large. 

 

As for lawsuits, courts give great deference to federal agencies. And to think that during a pandemic they are going to throw out CDC regulations is just a fantasy. 

[St. Louis Sal]

11 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

People posting in these forums may very well think that restarting cruises is a huge priority, but they are far from  representative of the population at large. 

You make an important point. All of us here on Cruise Critic see cruising as an important issue. I have lots of friends who have never cruised, and many have no desire to ever do so. For them, restarting cruises is a total nonissue. 
 

St Louis Sal

[Himself]

I will get in trouble for saying this but CDC has too much power as do to many Government bureaucrats. 

[Daniel A]

36 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

As for lawsuits, courts give great deference to federal agencies. And to think that during a pandemic they are going to throw out CDC regulations is just a fantasy. 

As I have said before, what the lawsuit does is force the CDC to produce the rational and factual science which justify its mandates in front of an impartial party.  Dr. Walensky would not answer questions in front of US Congress last week instead deflecting to vague prepared statements.  Maybe in an injunction hearing the CDC will HAVE to answer the questions and justify their actions.  CDC won't even say what requirements they will want for phase 2B, phase 3 and phase 4, but until an entire industry meets those secret requirements the industry must stay shut down and face financial ruin.  That certainly falls into the realm of being "arbitrary and capricious."

[harkinmr]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

First lawsuits are not about enacting legislation. Legislation is not going to be enacted as there are much larger priorities than cruises facing the USA. And there is such a level of partisanship that our legislators will not even back the normal noncontroversial stuff like renaming a post office if it is sponsored by a representative from the other party. And these bills only sponsored by minority party members are going nowhere. People posting in these forums may very well think that restarting cruises is a huge priority, but they are far from  representative of the population at large. 

 

As for lawsuits, courts give great deference to federal agencies. And to think that during a pandemic they are going to throw out CDC regulations is just a fantasy. 

+1

[cricketcj1]

we are in total agreement  this needs to be addressed &quistions answered by the CDC now not later. Lets get back on the water.

[nocl]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

As I have said before, what the lawsuit does is force the CDC to produce the rational and factual science which justify its mandates in front of an impartial party.  Dr. Walensky would not answer questions in front of US Congress last week instead deflecting to vague prepared statements.  Maybe in an injunction hearing the CDC will HAVE to answer the questions and justify their actions.  CDC won't even say what requirements they will want for phase 2B, phase 3 and phase 4, but until an entire industry meets those secret requirements the industry must stay shut down and face financial ruin.  That certainly falls into the realm of being "arbitrary and capricious."

Enough information is stated in the order itself to demonstrate that it is not arbitrary and capricious. 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

CDC won't even say what requirements they will want for phase 2B, phase 3 and phase 4, but until an entire industry meets those secret requirements the industry must stay shut down and face financial ruin.  That certainly falls into the realm of being "arbitrary and capricious."

As I've stated many times, when a regulatory agency issues a set of requirements or regulations, it is not dependent on the agency to formulate the action plans that the industry, or individual companies, need to meet those requirements.  The cruise lines have had the requirements for a year, and have done nothing to promulgate action plans other than wait until the CDC prompts them with technical instructions.

[MTAK]

2 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I will repeat once again, regulatory agencies are given great deference by courts. We are still in a pandemic, well over 1/2 million have died in the US alone. And you think the courts will go out of their way to overturn orders from the federal agency that has the responsibility of fighting against this disease.

 

And as I see @nocl has just pointed out, their orders are not arbitrary and capricious. The standards are not that a bunch of people who want to go on cruises really want to go on cruises and the Governor of Florida wants to grandstand.

Not necessarily.  Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements from Federal land agencies are often rejected by courts for being out of date or failing to consider all relevant information.

[ontheweb]

6 minutes ago, MTAK said:

Not necessarily.  Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements from Federal land agencies are often rejected by courts for being out of date or failing to consider all relevant information.

I did not say never; what I did say was that regulatory agencies were given deference by courts. And there really is a difference between environmental impact statements and safety measures especially during a global pandemic.

[MTAK]

2 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I did not say never; what I did say was that regulatory agencies were given deference by courts. And there really is a difference between environmental impact statements and safety measures especially during a global pandemic.

Sorry, I will probably be scoffed for this, but since the CDC order does not even consider the availability and use of vaccines, I don't think it's a stretch for a judge to intervene.

 

Does this mean the order would be rescinded and cruising would immediately resume? No, chances are the judge would order the CDC to update the document within a certain time frame.

[nocl]

2 minutes ago, MTAK said:

Sorry, I will probably be scoffed for this, but since the CDC order does not even consider the availability and use of vaccines, I don't think it's a stretch for a judge to intervene.

 

Does this mean the order would be rescinded and cruising would immediately resume? No, chances are the judge would order the CDC to update the document within a certain time frame.

The CDC does not address vaccines in the order in a positive or negative fashion. They certainly do not prevent the cruise lines for addressing the use of vaccines in their plans to resume cruising. When the cruise lines actually submit them.

 

Vaccines do not impact the need for some level of port agreements, which the cruise lines have not done either. The agreements that deal with what happens if a case does occur on board.

[MTAK]

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

The CDC does not address vaccines in the order in a positive or negative fashion. They certainly do not prevent the cruise lines for addressing the use of vaccines in their plans to resume cruising. When the cruise lines actually submit them.

 

Vaccines do not impact the need for some level of port agreements, which the cruise lines have not done either. The agreements that deal with what happens if a case does occur on board.

Background and Need To Establish a Framework for Mitigating the Risk of COVID-19 Onboard Cruise Ships Prior to Resuming Passenger Operations

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread rapidly around the world with no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized vaccine. As of October 30, 2020...

 

Risk is mentioned 37 times but vaccine is only mentioned twice.  The second time is found within the section dealing with public comments regarding 25% of respondents supporting waiting to resume cruising until after a vaccine is widely available.

 

You're correct in that they didn't address it at all because it wasn't even a consideration at that time.

 

[Daniel A]

24 minutes ago, nocl said:

Enough information is stated in the order itself to demonstrate that it is not arbitrary and capricious. 

 

18 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I will repeat once again, regulatory agencies are given great deference by courts. 

 

And as I see @nocl has just pointed out, their orders are not arbitrary and capricious. 

 

13 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The cruise lines have had the requirements for a year, and have done nothing to promulgate action plans other than wait until the CDC prompts them with technical instructions.

 

8 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I did not say never; what I did say was that regulatory agencies were given deference by courts. 

 

Although you all have opinions and I do respect them, I also have an opinion as well.  The plain fact of the matter is that our opinions do not matter.  What matters is the opinion of an individual wearing a black robe in a Federal Courthouse.

 

@chengkp75 I don't recall an in excess 12 hour mandated turn around period having been out there for a year.  The framework has only existed for six months.  I don't think the issue in the court is going to be whether or not the industry is formulating action plans.  It is going to be are the requirements known, justifiable and up to date.

 

@ontheweb You said 'never' in different wording.  Calling any action against a federal agency being successful as being "just a fantasy" is saying the same thing.

 

An injunction is not limited to "throwing out regulations" (although a court can do that.) A court injunction can require modifications to certain regulations, keep some as is and nullify others and dictate new actions and timelines.  All within the same injunction.  To believe that the whole framework will either need to be kept intact or thrown out in entirety is simplistic thinking at best.

 

Lastly, the governments lawyers may decide to enter into a more reasonable settlement agreement to settle the matter and avoid setting a potential precedent.

[nocl]

23 minutes ago, MTAK said:

Background and Need To Establish a Framework for Mitigating the Risk of COVID-19 Onboard Cruise Ships Prior to Resuming Passenger Operations

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread rapidly around the world with no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized vaccine. As of October 30, 2020...

 

Risk is mentioned 37 times but vaccine is only mentioned twice.  The second time is found within the section dealing with public comments regarding 25% of respondents supporting waiting to resume cruising until after a vaccine is widely available.

 

You're correct in that they didn't address it at all because it wasn't even a consideration at that time.

 

It still makes no difference in the order. Though the cruise lines could use full vaccination requirements in their port agreements to justify, in agreement with the ports, the need for only a few quarantine accommodations. Reducing the cost and complexity of those agreements. 

 

Just as they can include them their plans for restarting.

 

One can say that the CDC has not updated the order for vaccines that at this time they can only recommend, which they have, but not require.

 

Of course most cruise lines have not committed to requiring  vaccinations yet either.

[Daniel A]

5 hours ago, ontheweb said:

As for lawsuits, courts give great deference to federal agencies. And to think that during a pandemic they are going to throw out CDC regulations is just a fantasy. 

Just as an addendum, if the CDC were as confident as you are that a Judge wouldn't touch the CDC regulations with a ten foot pole, then why did CDC's lawyers feel the need to insert the following language into the Framework?

 

"If any provision in this Order, or the application of any provision to any carriers, persons, or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of the provisions or the application of such provisions to any carriers, persons, or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid shall remain valid and in effect."   -  See page 19 of the Framework Order.

 

Obviously the CDC's lawyers wanted this boilerplate language inserted in case some of the framework is deemed 'invalid.'  Even CDC recognizes that anything is possible when a case is argued before a Court and they are looking to minimize potential damage to their Order (Framework.)  Thus, even the CDC recognizes they are not omnipotent even during a pandemic.

[nocl]

7 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Just as an addendum, if the CDC were as confident as you are that a Judge wouldn't touch the CDC regulations with a ten foot pole, then why did CDC's lawyers feel the need to insert the following language into the Framework?

 

"If any provision in this Order, or the application of any provision to any carriers, persons, or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of the provisions or the application of such provisions to any carriers, persons, or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid shall remain valid and in effect."   -  See page 19 of the Framework Order.

 

Obviously the CDC's lawyers wanted this boilerplate language inserted in case some of the framework is deemed 'invalid.'  Even CDC recognizes that anything is possible when a case is argued before a Court and they are looking to minimize potential damage to their Order (Framework.)  Thus, even the CDC recognizes they are not omnipotent even during a pandemic.

Because it is boiler plate that is included in any similar regulation. FDA uses the same language and I suspect so do most other agencies. The intent is to make sure that a minor issue with one portion does not invalidate an entire regulation. Pretty standard language. Just shows that their legal team did their job prior to publication.

[kangforpres]

Look, cruising will restart in the USA when the R factor of Covid-19 is less then 1, when total new daily infections are less than 10k and at least 50% of the adult population as been completely vaccinated. Lots of public health official's are throwing in the towel on any sort of "herd immunity" in the US. But the situation will improve enough so the Cruise Industry will be allowed to offer it's product again.

 

Will this be in July? probably not, but it should be achievable by September, hopefully Labor day weekend. 

 

-Paul

[nocl]

14 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Just as an addendum, if the CDC were as confident as you are that a Judge wouldn't touch the CDC regulations with a ten foot pole, then why did CDC's lawyers feel the need to insert the following language into the Framework?

 

"If any provision in this Order, or the application of any provision to any carriers, persons, or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of the provisions or the application of such provisions to any carriers, persons, or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid shall remain valid and in effect."   -  See page 19 of the Framework Order.

 

Obviously the CDC's lawyers wanted this boilerplate language inserted in case some of the framework is deemed 'invalid.'  Even CDC recognizes that anything is possible when a case is argued before a Court and they are looking to minimize potential damage to their Order (Framework.)  Thus, even the CDC recognizes they are not omnipotent even during a pandemic.

Let me reverse this a bit. If Florida and Alaska were sure they had a case then how come they did not ask for a restraining order to all cruise ships to start up. Clearly if the judge believed their case to have merit and likely to win it would be granted due to the economic impact of waiting.

 

Just maybe one was not asked for, usually fairly standard request, because they were pretty sure one would not be granted and did not want it being declined to make the news.