Well, now this is interesting.....Looks like Florida may have gotten it's way.

[syesmar]

6 hours ago, kazu said:

...The Celebrity cruise you mention was with fully vaccinated crew and passenger and I agree, it was handled well.  Can you imagine the mess if 1/2 the cruise passengers had NOT been vaccinated?  

Vaccination is the key - all over the world - to stop the variants and mutations.  IMHO.

Agree that Celebrity did an excellent job in handling their situation.

Royal Caribbean having to cancel 4 cruises + the test cruise was quite unfortunate.

In the last couple days, Viking’s Orion had to intervene with the authorities in Bermuda. A passenger tested positive and she, her companion and 2 passengers who were with her on a shore excursion had to leave the ship for a 14(+) day hotel quarantine. The 3 with her were negative and all were fully vaccinated. Viking intervened and the 2 who were with her on the shore excursion were allowed back onboard (while the other two stayed quarantined on land). Had Viking not been successful in persuading the authorities in Bermuda, the 2 passengers—though vaccinated—would have been in a quarantine hotel for at least 14 days, for being on a shore excursion with a positive case (details of further protocols are on the Viking Board).

 

For me, it’s important to know what happens to the sailing when a positive case is discovered. The last week and a half has given us a window into different scenarios onboard and also with local authorities.

Edited June 20, 2021 by syesmar

[ontheweb]

7 hours ago, syesmar said:

Agree that Celebrity did an excellent job in handling their situation.

Royal Caribbean having to cancel 4 cruises + the test cruise was quite unfortunate.

In the last couple days, Viking’s Orion had to intervene with the authorities in Bermuda. A passenger tested positive and she, her companion and 2 passengers who were with her on a shore excursion had to leave the ship for a 14(+) day hotel quarantine. The 3 with her were negative and all were fully vaccinated. Viking intervened and the 2 who were with her on the shore excursion were allowed back onboard (while the other two stayed quarantined on land). Had Viking not been successful in persuading the authorities in Bermuda, the 2 passengers—though vaccinated—would have been in a quarantine hotel for at least 14 days, for being on a shore excursion with a positive case (details of further protocols are on the Viking Board).

 

For me, it’s important to know what happens to the sailing when a positive case is discovered. The last week and a half has given us a window into different scenarios onboard and also with local authorities.

You bring up an excellent point about local authorities. And we will not know how each and every country will react until there is some cause for them to react. And each as a sovereign state can fashion their own policy.

[silversneakers]

15 hours ago, NavArch64 said:

To AKJonesy ... for those of us sailing to Alaska this summer aboard Nieuw Amsterdam, what can we expect in Juneau, Ketchikan and Sitka?

HAL said ship-only excursions not required indicating you can go off on your own. We have friends doing a couple of land tours for 3 weeks (non cruise) and they indicate most of the land tours have been sold out so I would say land based events are wide-open for exploration. I'm sure they will have some COVID protocols in place.  I have heard that Alaska tourism has been very active even without the cruise ships.

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by silversneakers
addition

[kirtihk]

On 6/18/2021 at 9:01 PM, Djptcp said:

Just on the Carnival board and headline about this calls it a win for Florida. This is not a win for Florida or cruise passengers. Who wants to cruise with a bunch of non-vaccinated children and adults? We'll see what happens when the cruises start again. Worst case scenario is Covid erupts and the cruise lines are shut down again. Best case scenario is all non-vaccinated passengers have to prove negative tests upon embarkation, have to wear masks in public places on the ships, and are tested at debarkation. Glad our first cruise isn't until Dec. '21 (11 days on Holland) and our first Carnival cruise isn't until Jan. '22.  

Who wanted to cruise with a bunch of coughing people at any time before March 2020? And yet, all of us eagerly embarked on each cruise hoping that it will not affect us, didn’t we?

[Tampa Girl]

12 hours ago, nole01cruiser said:

 

While I can agree with your basic sentiment, my concern is not for health reasons.  It is for the possible curtailment of the cruise; or the refusal of a country to allow anyone from the ship to disembark; or for possible quarantine aboard ship.  In those possible events, which are not completely unlikely, it makes no difference if we are vaccinated.  We will suffer the disappointments and inconvenience and possible loss of money because of the unvaccinated.  

[AKJonesy]

3 hours ago, silversneakers said:

HAL said ship-only excursions not required indicating you can go off on your own. We have friends doing a couple of land tours for 3 weeks (non cruise) and they indicate most of the land tours have been sold out so I would say land based events are wide-open for exploration. I'm sure they will have some COVID protocols in place.  I have heard that Alaska tourism has been very active even without the cruise ships.

 

See my previous post.  When I get all of the information, I will post across all sailings.  See post #124

[kirtihk]

22 hours ago, JAVERZ said:

I totally agree with grest.  Who wants to invest all that time and money to go on a cruise that's disrupted by unvaccinated people spreading the virus to one another?  Remember what happened to passengers and crew last year when Covid-19 broke out? 

It does not matter.  There is always a chance they will find something in your nose (that’s the body’s filter to keep deadly matters away from its inside) regardless of whether you had a shot or not. Then the outcome is the same.

[kirtihk]

19 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Another way of looking at it is those who refuse vaccinations are the ones that will bring down the cruise industry. Everyone is welcome to make their own decision, but that does not mean decisions do not come with consequences. Just ask the hospital employees in Texas who just lost their court case about vaccinations being mandatory to their employment. The judge both dismissed their argument that "the experimental vaccines" were like the n a z i s experimenting on people in concentration camps and further went on to say they were free to look for other employment. 

It is already brought down. We may not blame ordinary individuals for that. Also, consequences must work in both directions, not just for those being selected as “weeds”.

[Gracie115]

4 hours ago, Tampa Girl said:

While I can agree with your basic sentiment, my concern is not for health reasons.  It is for the possible curtailment of the cruise; or the refusal of a country to allow anyone from the ship to disembark; or for possible quarantine aboard ship.  In those possible events, which are not completely unlikely, it makes no difference if we are vaccinated.  We will suffer the disappointments and inconvenience and possible loss of money because of the unvaccinated.  

They may not be completely unlikely but they are HIGHLY unlikely at this point.........

[Daniel A]

On 6/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, harkinmr said:

The judge's decision was effectively that the CSO is unlawful in its current form.  If it is unlawful, it is unlawful everywhere not just Florida.  Whatever happens with the CSO it will apply to all ports in the US. 

And the ruling does in fact impact Alaska sailings because those are based on compliance with the CSO.

IIRC, the 11th circuit only issues decisions within it's circuit which encompasses Florida, Georgia and Alabama.  Alaska is regulated by decisions in the 9th circuit, so even the news articles are stating this decision only covers Florida.  The CSO is permitted to continue in Alaska at this time.

[harkinmr]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

IIRC, the 11th circuit only issues decisions within it's circuit which encompasses Florida, Georgia and Alabama.  Alaska is regulated by decisions in the 9th circuit, so even the news articles are stating this decision only covers Florida.  The CSO is permitted to continue in Alaska at this time.

Federal appeals courts are set up to hear cases from district courts within their jurisdiction.  The US Supreme Court then can decide to hear an appeal from any of those appellate court jurisdictions.  This system is set up for ease of hearing appeals.  Not as a means of determining what federal laws apply to what jurisdictions.  For example,  IRS laws do not apply differently to me as a Florida resident than they do to someone else as a resident of New York, or California, or Arkansas.

 

The news media are correctly (for the most part) pointing out that there has been injunctive relief granted to the state of Florida, however that injunctive relief is not permanent.  That injunctive relief has been stayed.  The CSO will either be replaced by a new order, which will apply to all cruise lines from all ports, or the CSO will be non-binding pending a trial on the merits.  The preliminary injunction can also be appealed by the CDC and stayed by the appellate court.  If the judge determines at trial that the CDC exceeded its authority, and/or that the underlying statute establishing that authority is unconstitutional, then the CSO is no longer enforceable anywhere in the US, pending appeal.  

 

A federal law or regulation is not going to be applied differently from one jurisdiction to the next.  If it applies to one, it applies to all.  If a federal law is invalid and unenforceable in one jurisdiction it is invalid and unenforceable in all other jurisdictions.  The end result of this case will in fact impact Alaska cruises under the exemption just passed by Congress.  One cannot have it both ways.  One cannot have the benefit of the existing CSO in one state, yet determine that it is unenforceable in another.  Try to think how such a dichotomy in application would work.  Sailings from Florida have no control by the CDC, but sailings from everywhere else do.  This would be disadvantageous to the remaining states, the cruise lines and HHS/CDC.

Edited June 21, 2021 by harkinmr

[POA1]

It's going to depend a lot on how the ruling is written. This one looks pretty narrowly tailored. It's an 11th District case (FL, GA & AL) and the 11th D does not regularly decide to issue nationwide rulings. That's more of a 9th District thing. (They're the most overturned Federal Appeals court.)

 

The CDC has until July 2nd to respond. They simply need to back up the 95% vaccine threshold and the mask mandate using studies and supplying the names of the scientists who signed off on them.

We're far enough into this that one is surprised that they needed a delay. You'd think they'd have little laminated cards with this information by now.

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Federal appeals courts are set up to hear cases from district courts within their jurisdiction.  The US Supreme Court then can decide to hear an appeal from any of those appellate court jurisdictions.  This system is set up for ease of hearing appeals.  Not as a means of determining what federal laws apply to what jurisdictions.  For example,  IRS laws do not apply differently to me as a Florida resident than they do to someone else as a resident of New York, or California, or Arkansas.

 

The news media are correctly (for the most part) pointing out that there has been injunctive relief granted to the state of Florida, however that injunctive relief is not permanent.  That injunctive relief has been stayed.  The CSO will either be replaced by a new order, which will apply to all cruise lines from all ports, or the CSO will be non-binding pending a trial on the merits.  The preliminary injunction can also be appealed by the CDC and stayed by the appellate court.  If the judge determines at trial that the CDC exceeded its authority, and/or that the underlying statute establishing that authority is unconstitutional, then the CSO is no longer enforceable anywhere in the US, pending appeal.  

 

A federal law or regulation is not going to be applied differently from one jurisdiction to the next.  If it applies to one, it applies to all.  If a federal law is invalid and unenforceable in one jurisdiction it is invalid and unenforceable in all other jurisdictions.  The end result of this case will in fact impact Alaska cruises under the exemption just passed by Congress.  One cannot have it both ways.  One cannot have the benefit of the existing CSO in one state, yet determine that it is unenforceable in another.  Try to think how such a dichotomy in application would work.  Sailings from Florida have no control by the CDC, but sailings from everywhere else do.  This would be disadvantageous to the remaining states, the cruise lines and HHS/CDC.

Excellent analysis, but I would add one thing. Sometimes different courts in different jurisdictions come up with contradictory judgements. As you said, you cannot have different interpretations for different areas, so then the Supreme Court has to decide which judgement becomes binding for the nation.

[kelleherdl]

It’s fine to analyze the process, but what any appeals court will review is the merit of the ruling based on the supporting case law and the court record. Judge Merryday obviously knew that full well.  A federal judge must know that a case this important will be appealed if the litigants do not reach a mediated solution.  Anytime a state challenges a federal agency, particularly a federal agency acting in the middle of a pandemic, and wins; that is ripe for appeal.  In my opinion, this was not a sloppily written ruling.  It is very detailed and very logical in its reviews of the merits of both party’s arguments.  I know most folks on Cruise Critic did not take the time to actually read the ruling, but I highly recommend it.  Read it, not just to understand the arguments better, but to also self-educate on what a court ruling looks like.  I found it a fascinating read.  And no I am not a lawyer.

[harkinmr]

23 minutes ago, kelleherdl said:

It’s fine to analyze the process, but what any appeals court will review is the merit of the ruling based on the supporting case law and the court record. Judge Merryday obviously knew that full well.  A federal judge must know that a case this important will be appealed if the litigants do not reach a mediated solution.  Anytime a state challenges a federal agency, particularly a federal agency acting in the middle of a pandemic, and wins; that is ripe for appeal.  In my opinion, this was not a sloppily written ruling.  It is very detailed and very logical in its reviews of the merits of both party’s arguments.  I know most folks on Cruise Critic did not take the time to actually read the ruling, but I highly recommend it.  Read it, not just to understand the arguments better, but to also self-educate on what a court ruling looks like.  I found it a fascinating read.  And no I am not a lawyer.

But process is what was being discussed. And you are correct that judges write opinions with an eye towards not being overturned on appeal, but that does not insure that they won’t be. All judges write opinions that they believe are supported by the case law they cite. Interpretation and proper application are the key. This case is important in large part because it has to do with the exercise of authority given to a federal agency, and the judge questioned the constitutionality of the very statute that gives the CDC that authority. We will see what comes from any appeal. 
 

 

Edited June 21, 2021 by harkinmr

[kelleherdl]

7 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

But process is what was being discussed. And you are correct that judges write opinions with an eye towards not being overturned on appeal, but that does not insure that they won’t be. All judges write opinions that they believe are supported by the case law they cite. Interpretation is the key. This case is important in large part because it has to do with the exercise of authority given to a federal agency, and the judge questioned the constitutionality of the very statute that gives the CDC that authority. We will see what comes from any appeal. 
 

 

The judge DID NOT question the constitutionality of the Public Health Services Act. He questioned the agency’s interpretation of a section of that act to justify its broad actions.

[harkinmr]

12 minutes ago, kelleherdl said:

The judge DID NOT question the constitutionality of the Public Health Services Act. He questioned the agency’s interpretation of a section of that act to justify its broad actions.

He did not just question the interpretation of the statute.  He also questioned the underlying statutory delegation of authority to the CDC under 42 U.S. Code § 264 .  That is a constitutional question. That is what I was alluding to.  

 

[kelleherdl]

1 minute ago, harkinmr said:

He did not just question the interpretation of the statute.  He also questioned the underlying statutory delegation of authority to the CDC under 42 U.S. Code § 264 .  That is a constitutional question. That is what I was alluding to.  

 

Fair enough.  You are correct I was concentrating on the question of the CDC’s authority to promulgate, without benefit of conforming strictly to the Administrative Procedures Act, the broad regulatory actions collectively known as the Conditional Sail Order (CSO). The CDC contended that authority was ‘broadly’ authorized by the USPHS Act.

[Daniel A]

10 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Federal appeals courts are set up to hear cases from district courts within their jurisdiction.  

 

If the judge determines at trial that the CDC exceeded its authority, and/or that the underlying statute establishing that authority is unconstitutional, then the CSO is no longer enforceable anywhere in the US, pending appeal.  

 

A federal law or regulation is not going to be applied differently from one jurisdiction to the next.  If it applies to one, it applies to all.  

I don't believe that the constitutionality of any law is being questioned here.  The regulations issued by the CDC are at the center of the issue.  Florida is claiming that the CDC regulations exceeded the authority granted under federal law and at this point Judge Merryday seems to be in agreement.

 

This case is currently in a U.S. District Court, not a Circuit Appellate Court.  In order for a District Court injunction to be applicable nationwide the District Court Judge needs to state in writing in the injunction that it applies nationwide.  Judge Merryday did not make the injunction a nationwide injunction, on page 123 of his decision Merryday specifically limits the injunction as applying to any ship "arriving in, within or departing from a port in Florida."

 

The ability of a District Court Judge to issue an injunction which would apply nationwide is also in question.  According to an article in the Wall Street Journal "Under the Constitution, lower courts are empowered to decide cases for particular parties, not for the whole nation. In his concurrence last month in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the administration’s travel ban, Justice Clarence Thomas expresses skepticism that district courts have the authority to issue national injunctions "

When District Judges Try to Run the Country - WSJ

 

[harkinmr]

9 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Thank You so much for the clarity. It's so rare these days on the forum. 🙄

 

I would push the analysis further. Should the issue be pushed up to the appellant court, I can see some groups challenging businesses' vax-only policies, including cruise companies.

 

So, a win for Florida is a slippery slope for America. In the end, it could end up at the Supreme Court. Uncertain whether the courts would allow the status quo to continue, during the months that the cases will be under review. 😬

 

Not good for eager cruisers. I hope that AK doesn't get an influx of variant outbreaks. They have only fully vax 42% of their population and their cold season starts in 3 months. 

 

I think the real challenge in this case brought by Florida was whether the CSO was an exercise in agency overreach. The CSO was put into place by the CDC under the prior Administration in late October of last year. In large part it was pushback by Dr. Redfield in response to the Administration’s efforts to intercede and end the initial No Sail Order.  The CSO ended up being a much more oppressive involvement by the CDC in the restart. Understandably, with the COVID-19 mess in this country through February nothing progressed on the cruise front. The CDC did start working more effectively with the cruise lines in early April and the restart is underway. I believe that Florida’s legal efforts were “better late than never” and highly motivated by politics.  I have not changed my perspective based on this decision. 

[harkinmr]

6 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I don't believe that the constitutionality of any law is being questioned here.  The regulations issued by the CDC are at the center of the issue.  Florida is claiming that the CDC regulations exceeded the authority granted under federal law and at this point Judge Merryday seems to be in agreement.

 

This case is currently in a U.S. District Court, not a Circuit Appellate Court.  In order for a District Court injunction to be applicable nationwide the District Court Judge needs to state in writing in the injunction that it applies nationwide.  Judge Merryday did not make the injunction a nationwide injunction, on page 123 of his decision Merryday specifically limits the injunction as applying to any ship "arriving in, within or departing from a port in Florida."

 

The ability of a District Court Judge to issue an injunction which would apply nationwide is also in question.  According to an article in the Wall Street Journal "Under the Constitution, lower courts are empowered to decide cases for particular parties, not for the whole nation. In his concurrence last month in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the administration’s travel ban, Justice Clarence Thomas expresses skepticism that district courts have the authority to issue national injunctions "

When District Judges Try to Run the Country - WSJ

 

I am well aware that this case currently sits at the district court level.  The opinion piece you linked aside,  I also believe that Judge Merryday knows the limitations of his injunctive relief and the impact it has on the CSO nationwide, which is why he stayed the injunction and ordered the parties to mediation in order to revise the CSO.  I disagree that the district court’s ultimate decision in this case will impact only Florida.  When and if the CSO is modified, it will apply to all ships in all ports. District court interpretations and rulings on the validity or enforceability of a federal statute impact the application of that statute nationwide by virtue of the scope of federal law in general.

[chengkp75]

30 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I don't believe that the constitutionality of any law is being questioned here.  The regulations issued by the CDC are at the center of the issue.

There is a point of law, not sure whether it involves constitutionality or not, but the judge questioned the following phrase, from 42 USC 264 (note, USC not CFR):

 

" the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary."

 

He states that the phrase "and other measures" only applies to the preceding 6 actions (inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles).  I find it hard to believe that the framers of this law would go to include a following phrase of "and other measures" if those measures only referred to 6 previously specified measures.  The framers were looking at the long picture, and knowing that what was a threat at the time the law was passed would not necessarily be the only threats in the future.  It also seems to me that most of the CSO requirements fall under one or more of the 6 measures, especially as how those measures are to be carried out are not specified.

[Daniel A]

13 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

I am well aware that this case currently sits at the district court level.  The opinion piece you linked aside,  I also believe that Judge Merryday knows the limitations of his injunctive relief and the impact it has on the CSO nationwide, which is why he stayed the injunction and ordered the parties to mediation in order to revise the CSO.  I disagree that the district court’s ultimate decision in this case will impact only Florida.  When and if the CSO is modified, it will apply to all ships in all ports. District court interpretations and rulings on the validity or enforceability of a federal statute impact the application of that statute nationwide by virtue of the scope of federal law in general.

I am partly in agreement with you here.  It is my opinion that the preliminary injunction was intended as a "shot across the bow" to the CDC and Florida.  I think he carefully laid out a case as to where each of the parties have a strong case and where they are weak and then he sent both back to the shed.  At any rate, it will be interesting to see what eventually develops.  I think that by the time this case goes to trial and a final decision is reached, external factors will probably have made the whole issue of CSO's moot.  Good discussion here though.  Thank you for your professionalism and courtesy during the discussion - it is most appreciated.

[harkinmr]

2 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I am partly in agreement with you here.  It is my opinion that the preliminary injunction was intended as a "shot across the bow" to the CDC and Florida.  I think he carefully laid out a case as to where each of the parties have a strong case and where they are weak and then he sent both back to the shed.  At any rate, it will be interesting to see what eventually develops.  I think that by the time this case goes to trial and a final decision is reached, external factors will probably have made the whole issue of CSO's moot.  Good discussion here though.  Thank you for your professionalism and courtesy during the discussion - it is most appreciated.

Yes. Very good discussion. Which is a rarity on CC these days 😉. Thank you to you as well!

[AKJonesy]

On 6/20/2021 at 3:52 AM, silversneakers said:

On 6/19/2021 at 12:30 PM, NavArch64 said:

To AKJonesy ... for those of us sailing to Alaska this summer aboard Nieuw Amsterdam, what can we expect in Juneau, Ketchikan and Sitka?

HAL said ship-only excursions not required indicating you can go off on your own. We have friends doing a couple of land tours for 3 weeks (non cruise) and they indicate most of the land tours have been sold out so I would say land based events are wide-open for exploration. I'm sure they will have some COVID protocols in place.  I have heard that Alaska tourism has been very active even without the cruise ships.

One of the huge issues we are seeing here is the lack of help.  We were in Seward a week ago and the lack of help was obvious everywhere.  The person running the lodge where we stayed said he could not get local help, help in US or foreign labor help.  That was obvious because other than our basic room, everything that used to be open at the lodge was closed.  In fact, we could not even clean our fish in the fish house; we had to go downtown at the harbor.  I got most of my meals from Safeway.  So, I suspect we may see some of this on our cruises and when you consider the vast numbers of people disembarking for a short port day, everyone should exercise patience.