Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

And, in an interesting development, SCOTUS has upheld the CDC eviction moratorium, so a majority, including Chief Justice Roberts, feel it is not an "overreach" of power.  Could be a key for whether the CDC appeals the Florida case.

Possibly,  however it was a 5-4 decision and Kavanaugh voted to keep it in place only because the moratorium was going to last for one more month, but he said he agreed with the lower court judge that "CDC exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium"

 

IMHO that's not really a green light to CDC in the Florida case, but who knows what judges will come out with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, in an interesting development, SCOTUS has upheld the CDC eviction moratorium, so a majority, including Chief Justice Roberts, feel it is not an "overreach" of power.  Could be a key for whether the CDC appeals the Florida case.

Especially since there is less historical basis for the eviction moratorium and it seemed like a sure case of over reach 

 

As the head of my former legal department was found of saying if the plaintive has even the slightest case they should not lose the first round because they get to pick the most favorable venue. Interesting the the state chose the middle district, not the northern where the capital is, nor the southern that holds the most cruise ports 

Edited by nocl
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, in an interesting development, SCOTUS has upheld the CDC eviction moratorium, so a majority, including Chief Justice Roberts, feel it is not an "overreach" of power.  Could be a key for whether the CDC appeals the Florida case.

Thank you, that is an interesting development. And there is much more precedent for the CDC to have the authority to control who enters the borders than there was one for any kind of powers over stopping evictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Thank you, that is an interesting development. And there is much more precedent for the CDC to have the authority to control who enters the borders than there was one for any kind of powers over stopping evictions.

That was my feeling from the time they started the eviction moratorium.  And, if it was such a grievous overreach, even given that it was ending soon, my feeling is the justices would have overturned the stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh's decision has me puzzled.  He wrote that since the eviction moratorium was due to expire on July 31, he wouldn't vote to overturn it but he also wrote "In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31"

 

What would happen if the CDC decided to extend the moratorium?  Would the plaintiffs need to file a new action or can Kavanaugh rescind his original decision?  I've never seen where the Supreme Court said something was unlawful but permitted the conduct to continue anyway.  (I think Kavanaugh thought the whole matter would soon become moot.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Thank you, that is an interesting development. And there is much more precedent for the CDC to have the authority to control who enters the borders than there was one for any kind of powers over stopping evictions.

I agree.

 

As someone who spent a career working within the regulatory framework for a federal agency that also derives part of its authority from the same laws as the CDC, I has also felt that the CDC was out of its depth with an eviction moratorium. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Kavanaugh's decision has me puzzled.  He wrote that since the eviction moratorium was due to expire on July 31, he wouldn't vote to overturn it but he also wrote "In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31"

 

What would happen if the CDC decided to extend the moratorium?  Would the plaintiffs need to file a new action or can Kavanaugh rescind his original decision?  I've never seen where the Supreme Court said something was unlawful but permitted the conduct to continue anyway.  (I think Kavanaugh thought the whole matter would soon become moot.)

However, since it was upheld at the supreme court level there is now a precedent (which was lacking before) supporting the CDC authority on such actions.  While the law granted them the ability to take action when it was felt insufficient local action was taken there had not been a legal precedent in such a situation.  That will make it much harder to over turn in the future.

 

I also thought the eviction moratorium was an over reach.  Even though the law would clearly give the CDC the ability to even more invasive stoppage of travel between states (a power not used), the legal argument for the moratorium was that if someone was evicted and infected then they might not have anywhere to quarantine and might cross state lines, and as such there was insufficient action being taken by the states to prevent such, as certainly a stretch.

Edited by nocl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Kavanaugh's decision has me puzzled.  He wrote that since the eviction moratorium was due to expire on July 31, he wouldn't vote to overturn it but he also wrote "In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31"

 

What would happen if the CDC decided to extend the moratorium?  Would the plaintiffs need to file a new action or can Kavanaugh rescind his original decision?  I've never seen where the Supreme Court said something was unlawful but permitted the conduct to continue anyway.  (I think Kavanaugh thought the whole matter would soon become moot.)

Would need to be a new case filed.

 

Actually Kavanaugh did not say it was illegal, only that he might have voted differently if it had not been ending soon and that the time was necessary for funding actions to be completed. That congress should clarify the intent of the law more clearly.

 

That is a far cry from saying that it was unlawful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

Sounds like Kavanaugh's lack of ruling allows the CDC to retain that authority to do an eviction moratorium. Sort of a cop-out by Kavanaugh. 

In many ways it was kind of a cop-out, because his vote did establish a precedent, his comments, while giving some insight into his thoughts does not guarantee that he would vote otherwise if it was extended and a new case brought.  For that matter with the precedent established there is not guarantee that the court would even hear the new case.

Edited by nocl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, nocl said:

Would need to be a new case filed.

 

Actually Kavanaugh did not say it was illegal, only that he might have voted differently if it had not been ending soon and that the time was necessary for funding actions to be completed. That congress should clarify the intent of the law more clearly.

 

That is a far cry from saying that it was unlawful.

Yes, if he wanted to say it was "unlawful", he could have outright said that. But, people read what they want into the words of other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nocl said:

Actually Kavanaugh did not say it was illegal, only that he might have voted differently if it had not been ending soon and that the time was necessary for funding actions to be completed. That congress should clarify the intent of the law more clearly.

 

That is a far cry from saying that it was unlawful.

Actually, not such a far cry.  The first sentence of Kavanaugh's decision reads "I agree with the District Court and the applicants that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium."

 

 This decision does not set a precedent.  It does not say the CDC acted lawfully or within its authority.  The actual matter which came before the court is a bit more complex.  U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich ruled against the CDC order but granted a stay in the execution of her order in order to permit time for a CDC appeal.  The CDC appealed the order to the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Plaintiff (Landlords) appealed the judge's order to stay enforcement of her ruling.  The Circuit Court refused to lift the stay of the order but did not overturn the District Court decision.  The Plaintiffs filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to lift the stay blocking the District Courts order ending the moratorium but the Supreme Court refused to take up the matter to remove the stay.  The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, they merely refused to take it up leaving the Circuit Court's Panel decision not to lift the stay to remain in place.  They did this via their "Shadow Docket" procedure and Shadow Docket decisions do not set legal precedent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mtn2Sea said:

The judge gave the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through July 22 to respond to Florida's challenge of the cruise shutdown.
https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/legal-regulatory/judge-grants-cdc-more-time-respond-floridas-cruise-lawsuit

With ships now sailing, this whole issue might very well become moot before this case ever receives a final settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

With ships now sailing, this whole issue might very well become moot before this case ever receives a final settlement.

Quite possible. Wonder what that does to the restrictions that expire in October, like the limit on no more than 8 day cruises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mtn2Sea said:

The judge gave the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through July 22 to respond to Florida's challenge of the cruise shutdown.
https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/legal-regulatory/judge-grants-cdc-more-time-respond-floridas-cruise-lawsuit

That was an extension to reply to the original Florida complaint, not the injunction.  I was inquiring about the July 2 date to respond with a narrower injunction.  The injunction still goes into effect on July 18.  See:

"A US judge gave the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through July 22 to respond to Florida's challenge of the cruise shutdown.

 

This is related to the underlying lawsuit; the July 2 deadline for responding to the preliminary injunction still stands."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, harkinmr said:

 

UPDATE:
 

The government has filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals 

 

Florida v. HHS, CDC (2150.com)
 

A Motion For A Stay Pending Appeal has also been filed in connection with the Preliminary Injunction.

96_047023193317_MotionToStay.pdf (2150.com)
 

 

Yea I had a feeling CDC would not give up without a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KirkNC said:

Yea I had a feeling CDC would not give up without a fight.

And if the CDC had won, it would now be Florida appealing the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

And if the CDC had won, it would now be Florida appealing the decision.

Agreed, probably end up at the SCOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KirkNC said:

Agreed, probably end up at the SCOTUS.

And by the time it is decided to grant or not grant a TEMPORARY injunction, cruise sailings will probably be back to what they were before the pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, harkinmr said:

 

UPDATE:
 

The government has filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals 

 

Florida v. HHS, CDC (2150.com)
 

A Motion For A Stay Pending Appeal has also been filed in connection with the Preliminary Injunction.

96_047023193317_MotionToStay.pdf (2150.com)
 

 

 

5 hours ago, KirkNC said:

Yea I had a feeling CDC would not give up without a fight.

 

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

And if the CDC had won, it would now be Florida appealing the decision.

 

2 hours ago, KirkNC said:

Agreed, probably end up at the SCOTUS.

 

35 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And by the time it is decided to grant or not grant a TEMPORARY injunction, cruise sailings will probably be back to what they were before the pandemic.

At this point the process needs to finish, even if it is after cruising fully returns. The object of the lawsuit is to define the limits of power for the CDC. If the action ends now, the CDC could claim that because the lawsuit was dropped they have the unlimited power they claim.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...