May 12, 2021 CDC hearing set to start at 9:00am

[ChutChut]

6 minutes ago, coldflame said:

 

Which is super ironic considering DeSantis isn't allowing the industry to self-regulate in requiring vaccination proof.

Two entirely different issues. One is when the ship is at sea, it must self-regulate as it has no immediate oversight on every (or any) sailing. Mandating vaccination and/or proof is an entirely different animal and involves privacy, health record issues, etc. States (in the US, anyway), historically, have the power (not feds, etc.) to require vaccinations.

[dswallow]

1 hour ago, mauraoel said:

The article said that Texas and Alaska were on the phone during the hearing. 

 

Their motions to attend telephonically were denied by the judge yesterday.

Florida v. HHS, CDC (2150.com)

[livingonthebeach]

20 minutes ago, dswallow said:

 

Their motions to attend telephonically were denied by the judge yesterday.

Florida v. HHS, CDC (2150.com)

 

Thanks for this -- I just saw the motions on the other court site and didn't see they were denied.  This site is more thorough.

[Stallion]

Often a judge will give the attorneys a strong indication of how he is leading at the conclusion of the hearing but for a formal opinion he will have to consider each plaintiff, defendant, intervenors and amicus briefs and formally rule on each motion to intervene, supplement the record, leave to file amicus brief and objections to declarations (affidavits). I haven't seen the latest trial record but we are probably talking about tens of thousands of pages of motions, responses, briefs, declarations(affidavits), and exhibits. He'll go back to chambers and tell his legal clerks and staff to "get 'er done". State Court judges are more likely to rely on the attorneys to write the Order because they don't have the office staff and legal clerks that federal courts do. The problem is that you can bet that if the Court takes it under consideration then he'll be getting more motions for leave to file supplemental briefs (and responses) from the parties to present precedent on issue raised at the hearing. It never ends in a case like this until the Order. Then the parties file motions to reconsider and/or appeal. This is when the legal bills explode

[Jimbo]

Where is  Judge Wapner when we need him?

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Jimbo

[coldflame]

14 minutes ago, Stallion said:

Often a judge will give the attorneys a strong indication of how he is leading at the conclusion of the hearing but for a formal opinion he will have to consider each plaintiff, defendant, intervenors and amicus briefs and formally rule on each motion to intervene, supplement the record, leave to file amicus brief and objections to declarations (affidavits). I haven't seen the latest trial record but we are probably talking about tens of thousands of pages of motions, responses, briefs, declarations(affidavits), and exhibits. He'll go back to chambers and tell his legal clerks and staff to "get 'er done". State Court judges are more likely to rely on the attorneys to write the Order because they don't have the office staff and legal clerks that federal courts do. The problem is that you can bet that if the Court takes it under consideration then he'll be getting more motions for leave to file supplemental briefs (and responses) from the parties to present precedent on issue raised at the hearing. It never ends in a case like this until the Order. Then the parties file motions to reconsider and/or appeal. This is when the legal bills explode

Yeah IF he takes the case, I don't think it will be a summary judgement. He might request expert testimony and other records. Which even at warp court speed, could be weeks.

[broberts]

2 hours ago, Jimbo said:

Wonder what every day there is a delay in the judge's ruling delays the cruise start.

 

Mid July is the proposed start date.

 

1 day =  another week delay? or more?

 

Like would waiting another week before we know what's going on then mean, a mid September start?

 

Sad part about this, may only be 3 or 3 ships starting back at that start date time...

 

How do you figure that delays in the judge ruling will delay the resumption of cruising?

 

Do you really think the cruise ships can or would sail as soon as an injunction was granted? 

[Stallion]

the case is ongoing whether he rules for the CDC or Florida on a preliminary injunction although the losing party may seek an immediate appeal.  Remember this is a hearing on administrative record and pleading so the parties likely have done little discovery. In fact, the CDC said they haven't had enough time to file a complete administrative record yet. If the Temporary injunction is denied we are talking a year+ not days before a final injunction hearing and trial. Both the trial court and appellate court would have to decide whether to stay the preliminary injunction order pending appellate consideration. Immediate appeals are generally on accelerated time deadlines but even still it might take 3 months for a decision from an appellate court.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Stallion

[Jimbo]

1 minute ago, broberts said:

 

How do you figure that delays in the judge ruling will delay the resumption of cruising?

 

Do you really think the cruise ships can or would sail as soon as an injunction was granted? 

Once injunction is granted doesn't mean they start cruising the next day. So , I'm saying every week they delay it adds 4 weeks before they start getting crew together, provisions, etc.

 

If they had got the go last week the start date was Mid July, now since it's a week later the new start might not be now until August 2021

[Jimbo]

3 minutes ago, Stallion said:

the case is ongoing whether he rules for the CDC or Florida on a preliminary injunction although the losing party may seek an immediate appeal.  Remember this is a hearing on administrative record and pleading so the parties likely have done little discovery. In fact, the CDC said they haven't had enough time to file a complete administrative record yet. If the Temporary injunction is denied we are talking a year+ not days before a final injunction hearing and trial. Immediate appeals are generally on accelerated time deadlines but even still it might take 3 months for a decision from an appellate court.

Exactly !

[Tippyton]

10 minutes ago, Stallion said:

the case is ongoing whether he rules for the CDC or Florida on a preliminary injunction although the losing party may seek an immediate appeal.  Remember this is a hearing on administrative record and pleading so the parties likely have done little discovery. In fact, the CDC said they haven't had enough time to file a complete administrative record yet. If the Temporary injunction is denied we are talking a year+ not days before a final injunction hearing and trial. Both the trial court and appellate court would have to decide whether to stay the preliminary injunction order pending appellate consideration. Immediate appeals are generally on accelerated time deadlines but even still it might take 3 months for a decision from an appellate court.

Although I may not agree with you 99% of the time I appreciated the fact you opine with a basis of fact and not out of your !^$#!.

[broberts]

11 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

Once injunction is granted doesn't mean they start cruising the next day. So , I'm saying every week they delay it adds 4 weeks before they start getting crew together, provisions, etc.

 

If they had got the go last week the start date was Mid July, now since it's a week later the new start might not be now until August 2021

 

So will you faint if the ships start sailing in July under a CDC guidance?

[coldflame]

47 minutes ago, Stallion said:

the case is ongoing whether he rules for the CDC or Florida on a preliminary injunction although the losing party may seek an immediate appeal.  Remember this is a hearing on administrative record and pleading so the parties likely have done little discovery. In fact, the CDC said they haven't had enough time to file a complete administrative record yet. If the Temporary injunction is denied we are talking a year+ not days before a final injunction hearing and trial. Both the trial court and appellate court would have to decide whether to stay the preliminary injunction order pending appellate consideration. Immediate appeals are generally on accelerated time deadlines but even still it might take 3 months for a decision from an appellate court.

 

By then it might be moot as the original claims might no longer be valid/relevant. This is looking more and more as way to pressure the CDC into action  (i.e. forcing their hand), than the actual outcome.

[Jimbo]

1 hour ago, broberts said:

 

So will you faint if the ships start sailing in July under a CDC guidance?

Sorry about that, That chance probably went out the door a week or 2 ago.................Lots to be done before  a ships sails from the US.

[ONECRUISER]

9 hours ago, coldflame said:

 

Yup. Because it's entirely different and does pose a far greater risk than flying. Another anti-CDC drone, eh? 

Please don't name call and assume. Thank you

[smokeybandit]

12 hours ago, Stallion said:

In fact, the CDC said they haven't had enough time to file a complete administrative record yet.

 

Which is a pretty standard line for a defendant to give.

 

Then again the CDC is still stick in March 2020

[coldflame]

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

 

Which is a pretty standard line for a defendant to give.

 

Then again the CDC is still stick in March 2020

 

What are you on about? While cases are way down and vaccinations way up in the US, that's not true at all of other places in the world. People here in particular are myopic in that just because it's not a problem here, it's not a problem elsewhere and the risk of bringing the disease back to the states. 

[smokeybandit]

3 minutes ago, coldflame said:

 

What are you on about? While cases are way down and vaccinations way up in the US, that's not true at all of other places in the world. People here in particular are myopic in that just because it's not a problem here, it's not a problem elsewhere and the risk of bringing the disease back to the states. 

 

Yep, let's just lockdown forever until there are zero covid cases worldwide.

[coldflame]

Just now, smokeybandit said:

 

Yep, let's just lockdown forever until there are zero covid cases worldwide.

 

Nonsense. Life is mostly back to normal. It's people in this forum playing victim for waiting a few more months.

[livingonthebeach]

As mentioned previously ASTA (American Society of Travel Agents), on the day of the hearing, May 12, filed a brief in support of the State of Florida.  

 

These are some of their salient points:

 

"A preliminary and/or permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from enforcing the Conditional Sailing Order would be consistent with the public interest insofar as it has already been established that cruising can be conducted safely with reasonable health protocols in place. Since September 2020, cruise ships have resumed sailings in several major markets outside of the United States. In that time, over 400,000 passengers have cruised in Europe, Asia and the South Pacific, with fewer than 50 reported coronavirus cases, an exceedingly low infection rate, and no fatalities.

 

By the CDC’s own accounting, since its peak in early January 2021, the number of reported new cases has been in a virtual freefall, with the seven-day moving average of such cases down nearly 81 percent over that timeframe.21 This drastic improvement is, of course, attributable in no small measure to the development and widespread distribution of several effective COVID-19 vaccines, none of which existed at this time last year. So, to the extent that the government may have previously had a compelling interest in taking extreme action to protect public health, that is clearly no longer the case.

 

Even assuming, arguendo, that this Court should find that the Defendants had and still have a compelling governmental interest, they will be unable to demonstrate that they used the less restrictive means to achieve their expressed public health objectives. To the contrary, any number of less-restrictive means to achieve the same ends were, and are, available. In lieu of the total suspension of cruise travel, the CDC could have, for example, permitted cruise lines to operate at 25 percent of capacity or whatever other percentage of capacity it deemed appropriate.

 

Alternatively, passengers could have been required to provide a negative COVID-19 test result in order to board the ship or, if that was not deemed sufficient, to present proof of vaccination prior to boarding. Similarly, the CDC could have required daily temperature checks of all cruise passengers, with those exhibiting any concerning symptoms to be quarantined for the duration of the cruise. Apart from passenger screening, compliance with specific on-board social distancing or sanitation protocols could also have been mandated as a condition of sailing.

 

It is beyond dispute that all of these actions are effective in combating the spread of COVID-19, as airlines, hotels, theme parks, restaurants, and businesses in scores of other industries have all safely resumed operations utilizing these measures. Because the Defendants cannot show that they adopted the least restrictive means available to further their legitimate public health interests, their actions cannot satisfy strict scrutiny and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the relief it seeks."

[broberts]

Because ASTA is objective and only has the health and well being of all Americans at heart. 🙄

[livingonthebeach]

1 minute ago, broberts said:

Because ASTA is objective and only has the health and well being of all Americans at heart. 🙄

 

ASTA has some very valid points and should voice these concerns and advocate for their members on what appears to be a grave injustice to their industry, just like other trade group or union in the US would do for their members, if they were in the same situation and deprived of their livelihoods.   

[ChutChut]

14 hours ago, coldflame said:

Yeah IF he takes the case, I don't think it will be a summary judgement. He might request expert testimony and other records. Which even at warp court speed, could be weeks.

Does anyone know when the judge might issue his decision?

Edited May 13, 2021 by ChutChut

[livingonthebeach]

11 minutes ago, ChutChut said:

Does anyone know when the judge might issue his decision?

 

No time or time line announced yet. 

[ChutChut]

18 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

No time or time line announced yet. 

thank you.