Florida wins injunction over CDC's CSO

[rtazz17]

2 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Because the CDC is not going to just fold and walk away.  They have too much invested in not doing that.  Especially after today.  That’s the optics. This just throws the restart into a tailspin and that’s not a good result either.  Round one to Florida.  An appeal will be filed and/or a replacement CSO will come into play. Then we have Round 2.  

The cdc is a political party now. Not listening to science,ignoring common sense etc. They are worthless. 

[smokeybandit]

51 minutes ago, kevink said:

have to prove that what they intend to impose on the ships is supported by science and show their methodology.

It'd be the first time the CDC has had to do something that's supported by science.

[GA Dave]

The biggest thing to remember is that the Adventure cruise currently happening had zero oversight by the CDC.  It did not enter US waters at any time during its voyage and is a foreign flagged ship that the CDC does not have any jurisdiction over unless it is in US waters.  Yet they still had testing, social distancing, etc.  The cruise line chose to take these measures, it was not forced to do so by the CDC.

[mayleeman]

I think the opinion is an interesting case study in judicial ambition: He want to dispose of everything at issue between the cruise industry,  FL, and the CDC. He is clearly hoping to force a settlement by delaying his final ruling, and also knows that his opinion would have to be vacated if the parties do settle all issues.

 

Judges asked to issue injunctions do not normally say, yes it is necessar to enjoin this behavior but I will wait a month to see if it stops.

 

I knew many judges who delayed issuing final orders just as he did, hoping to obtain a settlement, but the main reason is to prevent a party from being able to appeal since it is technically still pending.

 

I haven't finished reading the part of the ruling discussing CDC jurisdicton. But his history of quarantine and the CDC's authority seemed to be leading to a single conclusion: no jurisdiction. So how is that consistent with leaving the CDC NSO in place for awhile, until the agency without jurisdiction issues another order?

 

Love the "if CDC has jurisdiction under Section [whatever it was] then the section is unconstitutional". Most of the opinion is based on the Admin Procedure Act, but oh, by the way, even if valid under the APA the other law is bad. But gosh, lets let the parties cure the problem by settling.

 

Judge knows he will likely get overturned on appeal. You don't invite settlement after deciding an agency is acting under an illegal grant of authority.

[harkinmr]

8 minutes ago, GA Dave said:

The biggest thing to remember is that the Adventure cruise currently happening had zero oversight by the CDC.  It did not enter US waters at any time during its voyage and is a foreign flagged ship that the CDC does not have any jurisdiction over unless it is in US waters.  Yet they still had testing, social distancing, etc.  The cruise line chose to take these measures, it was not forced to do so by the CDC.

And I think they will continue to do that even if the CSO were to disappear tomorrow.

[harkinmr]

5 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

The ATRA never mentioned the CSO. Just the conditional sailing certificate.  So would it be in essence nullified if ships don't have conditional sailing certificates because such a thing doesn't exist? I wouldn't think so. 

Yes, it would be nullified.  The Conditional Sailing Certificate is only defined in the CSO and that is the reference Congress included.  Without the CSO you have no Conditional Sailing Certificate, therefore no temporary exemption.  Congress would have to amend the legislation to exclude the requirement for the Certificate if it was unavailable.

[cscurlock]

7 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

I think the opinion is an interesting case study in judicial ambition: He want to dispose of everything at issue between the cruise industry,  FL, and the CDC. He is clearly hoping to force a settlement by delaying his final ruling, and also knows that his opinion would have to be vacated if the parties do settle all issues.

 

Judges asked to issue injunctions do not normally say, yes it is necessar to enjoin this behavior but I will wait a month to see if it stops.

 

I knew many judges who delayed issuing final orders just as he did, hoping to obtain a settlement, but the main reason is to prevent a party from being able to appeal since it is technically still pending.

 

I haven't finished reading the part of the ruling discussing CDC jurisdicton. But his history of quarantine and the CDC's authority seemed to be leading to a single conclusion: no jurisdiction. So how is that consistent with leaving the CDC NSO in place for awhile, until the agency without jurisdiction issues another order?

 

Love the "if CDC has jurisdiction under Section [whatever it was] then the section is unconstitutional". Most of the opinion is based on the Admin Procedure Act, but oh, by the way, even if valid under the APA the other law is bad. But gosh, lets let the parties cure the problem by settling.

 

Judge knows he will likely get overturned on appeal. You don't invite settlement after deciding an agency is acting under an illegal grant of authority.

Agree with what you have said here.  They will appeal on July 18th.  The CDC will hold firm in mediation and it will go to appeals and during that time the CSO will be held until an appeal ruling.  If they don't get a win there they might appeal to supreme court and by that time all the ships will be sailing so it wont matter.  If the judge thinks the CDC was in the wrong why invite settlement?  No point if he thinks its unconstitutional.

[cruisegus]

interesting in the executive summary I read of the 120+ page ruling, the first 80 pages Judge Merryday focused right in on the CDC's authority to issue both the NSO and the CSO.

 

The central issue for Merryday in this case is ruling on is whether an executive agency (the CDC) has the constitutional authority to impose an unlawful exercise of law making granted to Congress.  For all intent and purpose the CSO is a law. It looks like a law, its filed like a law and is enforceable with penalties as a law and the CDC has no authority to make laws .  So I think he may have been telling Congress to do there job and pass a law.

 

"Vaccinations? Merryday goes a long way in his ruling touting them as a basis upon which the cruise lines should be able to get safely rolling again. If anything, In FL, I see a continuation of the requirement to be vaccinated to cruise because that approach is working elsewhere to contain outbreaks and make them manageable if they occur"

"There is no federal mandate for vaccination. Its recommended. Therefore, the applicable law get down to EEOC regulations that permit businesses to establish their own policies for regulating work place health and safety as long as it isn't discriminatory. So far, that's been upheld in the TX case. "

 

footnote;  JeffB RCI blog

 

[Pratique]

15 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

I think the opinion is an interesting case study in judicial ambition:

..,

Judge knows he will likely get overturned on appeal. You don't invite settlement after deciding an agency is acting under an illegal grant of authority.

For a pre-trial opinion, he seems to have reached a final verdict and even opined on how SCOTUS will affirm him.

[cruisegus]

7 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Yes, it would be nullified.  The Conditional Sailing Certificate is only defined in the CSO and that is the reference Congress included.  Without the CSO you have no Conditional Sailing Certificate, therefore no temporary exemption.  Congress would have to amend the legislation to exclude the requirement for the Certificate if it was unavailable.

disagree his ruling specifically only applied to Florida and I believe he denied Texas and Alaska from joining the suit questioning their standing

[BlerkOne]

3 minutes ago, Pratique said:

For a pre-trial opinion, he seems to have reached a final verdict and even opined on how SCOTUS will affirm him.

An opinion based on the CSO as it stands today - once updated, it is back to square one.

[harkinmr]

1 minute ago, cruisegus said:

disagree his ruling specifically only applied to Florida and I believe he denied Texas and Alaska from joining the suit questioning their standing

His ruling goes specifically to the CSO as a whole, not just its application to Florida.  If his ruling is that the CSO is unlawful, it is unlawful everywhere.

[xpcdoojk]

3 hours ago, Ferry_Watcher said:

Darwinism at its best.  Not sure if a non vaccinated adult (especially an older adult male) should take those odds.

Don’t think there are a lot of older people who cruise who either had the shot or the actual virus.  It will be the 20 and 30 somethings that will be the center of the viral activity.

[Oceansaway17]

I guess I have to ask, if the FLA governor has won in that the CDC can not keep ships from sailing or dictate how they can sail (or least until we hear more), then does that mean the FLA governor himself can not tell the cruise lines how to run their ships???   I mean only fair right

 

Meaning if any ship wants to have fully vaccinated passengers over 12 they can?  OR does he now get to bossy them around like the CDC did?   So confused on this.  And Alaska should just be able to sail no matter what I say

[Jimbo]

Whats this mean for Alaska cruises in 2021?

[mayleeman]

I would not be surprised to see the CDC appeal immediately. I have not compared the 2 opinions, but did he cite the Supreme Court case dismissing an Obamacare challenge for lack of standing? I could see an appellate court reversing with instructions to analyze this case under the Sup Ct's latest ruling on standing.

 

As some have pointed out, delaying even a few months will moot the case, and appellate courts love to avoid unnecessary cases.

Edited June 19, 2021 by mayleeman

[firefly333]

6 minutes ago, cruisegus said:

disagree his ruling specifically only applied to Florida and I believe he denied Texas and Alaska from joining the suit questioning their standing

If the cso is changed, how could it not affect other ports protocols. Let's say the 95% changed ..it would affect other ports too.

[xpcdoojk]

3 hours ago, SRQbeachgirl said:

 

Except the judge clearly stated that whatever proposed revisions the CDC submits must be in line with the requirements for other forms of travel. Since no other form of travel requires vaccinations - and since the judge even appeared skeptical of 95% vaccinated passenger requirement, it would seem doubtful he would accept requiring cruise passengers to be vaccinated.

Which is the only rationale a logical and fair judge could reach.  If you can sit in Chucky Cheese for 3 hours why can’t you go on a cruise, etc.

 

I am not saying Covid is over, I am just saying, decrees from on high that are logically and scientifically stupid don’t stand up well in the light of day.  

 

 

[Pratique]

3 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

An opinion based on the CSO as it stands today - once updated, it is back to square one.

Perhaps, but the judge seems to be saying that CDC has no authority at all to issue any CSO. Yet he’s giving them another chance to try. He’s picked apart DOJ’s arguments before they’ve even filed an answer to the lawsuit. It feels like the cake is already baked regardless of what happens unless there is a settlement.

[xpcdoojk]

3 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Because the CDC is not going to just fold and walk away.  They have too much invested in not doing that.  Especially after today.  That’s the optics. This just throws the restart into a tailspin and that’s not a good result either.  Round one to Florida.  An appeal will be filed and/or a replacement CSO will come into play. Then we have Round 2.  

So, they lose their Monopoly money?  What exactly have they invested other than making up rules that destroy one business and leave another business able to operate?  Is that something we want government to do?  Pick winners and losers?

 

I hope for your sake your side of government never loses.

 

Most of us don’t depend on the government for our lives.  We do the work ourselves.  We INVEST in ourselves.  

[sm3ds]

2 minutes ago, Oceansaway17 said:

I guess I have to ask, if the FLA governor has won in that the CDC can not keep ships from sailing or dictate how they can sail (or least until we hear more), then does that mean the FLA governor himself can not tell the cruise lines how to run their ships???   I mean only fair right

 

Meaning if any ship wants to have fully vaccinated passengers over 12 they can?  OR does he now get to bossy them around like the CDC did?   So confused on this.  And Alaska should just be able to sail no matter what I say

Other than telling cruise lines they can't ask for vaccine proof he will stay out of it. He let the theme parks do their thing with masks, social distancing and capacity controls and it was the theme parks that decided when to drop the masks, social distancing and increase capacity. 

The cruise lines will now be able to decide how to proceed not the CDC. Us as consumers will decide which cruise line we want to sail on based on their protocols.  

[Oceansaway17]

Just now, sm3ds said:

Other than telling cruise lines they can't ask for vaccine proof he will stay out of it. He let the theme parks do their thing with masks, social distancing and capacity controls and it was the theme parks that decided when to drop the masks, social distancing and increase capacity. 

The cruise lines will now be able to decide how to proceed not the CDC. Us as consumers will decide which cruise line we want to sail on based on their protocols.  

yea I hear you except for the vaxx requirement.  That should be up to the cruise lines for at least the rest of this year.  but time will tell right?

[xpcdoojk]

2 hours ago, sept10dsm said:

You are SO LUCKY to have both your parents alive at those wonderful ages!  Thank him for his service and happy father's day!  

Agree, you are lucky, or cursed...  as someone with one elder parent at that age and history.  I love my MIL and my mother who passed away a few years ago, both had husbands serving in WWII.  I wouldn’t be the person I am without both of them.  That said, taking care of them is a burden.  I know you carry that burden well, Jane.

[vjmatty]

5 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

Right? Looks like crow is on the menu tonight for all of the DeSantis haters. (And you know who you are!)

I have no dog in this race as I’m not from Florida and don’t sail from there, but the crow will unfortunately be eaten by those who’ve won the battle but lost the war…. by having to stay on the ship at all of the ports requiring a vaccine. 

[Pratique]

9 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

I would not be surprised to see the CDC appeal immediately. I have not compared the 2 opinions, but did he cite the Supreme Court case dismissing an Obamacare challenge for lack of standing? I could see an appellate court reversing with instructions to analyze this case under the Sup Ct's latest ruling on standing.

 

As some have pointed out, delaying even a few months will moot the case, and appellate courts love to avoid unnecessary cases.

I didn’t see any reference to the Cal. v Texas case but it seems relevant because standing was predicated on indirect economic harm. Since any appeal would be to the preliminary injunction not sure if the 11th Circuit could put it on hold for too long.