Florida wins against CDC?

[coffeebean]

7 hours ago, laedw said:

If NCL changes their fully vaccinated only sailing requirements, I will have to find another cruise line that has fully vaccinated sailing restrictions.  

NCL may be forced to change their commitment for 100% vaccinated cruises. Now that the CDC CSO is not mandating the 95% vaccinated passengers, there is only a guideline in place for cruise lines to require proof of vaccination status. I don't think a guideline is strong enough to hold up in a court of law and any cruise line wishing to require vaccine status will be subject to the stiff fine imposed by the state of Florida. As I've said before, this is a bad situation for those people who want to sail on vaccinated cruises out of Florida.

 

This is a big win for people who want to sail on cruise lines that offer unlimited amount of un-vaxxed passengers and they will probably hope some of those strict protocols will be dropped by the cruise lines.

 

I will not be sailing out of Florida any time soon.

[At Sea At Peace]

9 hours ago, zerooveride said:

IT is very surprising that the same 3-panel of Judges changed their opinion like that. I wouldn't be shocked now if the CDC appeals to the Supreme Court for a stay.

 

They do have some precedent on their side as the Supreme Court declined to stop the CDC's eviction moratorium recently.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/29/politics/supreme-court-eviction-moratorium-cdc/index.html

 

4 hours ago, piedpiper99 said:

better check the headlines.  SCOTUS sent that case back to the appeals court and they just ruled against the CDC.

 

Yep.

 

I wonder what impact that had on the decision by the 11th to 'take another look' and reverse and deny the STAY "because appellants failed to demonstrate entitlement to a stay pending appeal" (i.e., pending Florida's appeal to the SCOTUS).

 

In a related matter, another Court of Appeals rules CDC 'exceeded its authority' in the 'evictions' moratorium.  Such has been referenced by Florida in its three litigation cases.

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-appeals-court-finds-cdc-172955209.html

 

 

 

[Karaboudjan]

The CDC states, though, that the transit mask rule will apply to any cruise ships not following the CSO:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/cdc-says-mask-rules-apply-022106563.html

[HuliHuli]

1 hour ago, At Sea At Peace said:

In a related matter, another Court of Appeals rules CDC 'exceeded its authority' in the 'evictions' moratorium.  Such has been referenced by Florida in its three litigation cases.

Indeed, this is at the heart of the case Florida has brought and the precedent case that the Alabama/Georgia realtors brought regarding CDC's eviction Moratorium in which they argued,

"Finally, the Eviction Moratorium raises serious constitutional questions. If Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act confers such broad authority upon the CDC to adopt an eviction moratorium, the statute would violate the nondelegation doctrine because it contains no intelligible principle guiding the CDC’s exercise of its authority. The Eviction Moratorium is also unconstitutional because it effectuates a taking of private property without just compensation, violates procedural due process, and infringes on the right of access to the courts."

As I've written previously, this is not a health related debate (despite the fact that it involves the CDC in both cases), but rather a matter of constitutional law framing the boundaries all administrative agencies must operate within based upon the laws Congress passes.

Here, @Navis may wish to provide additional legal color, that is if he/she hasn't retired to the other bar where we all seek to be enjoying Boat Drinks. 😉

[Daniel A]

26 minutes ago, Karaboudjan said:

The CDC states, though, that the transit mask rule will apply to any cruise ships not following the CSO:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/cdc-says-mask-rules-apply-022106563.html

That's an interesting article.  I don't believe Judge Merryday will permit the CDC inflicting punishment on only those ships that do not comply with the CSO.  That on its face is making it a mandatory requirement rather than medical guidance.  It clearly flies in the face of the injunction.  The CDC response to the lifting of the stay sounds more like an intemperate child having a tantrum.  If CDC wants to implement these provisions across the board on all cruise ships, that's one thing, but this article says these rules will only apply to those ships not voluntarily complying with the CSO.

[HuliHuli]

9 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

The CDC response to the lifting of the stay sounds more like an intemperate child having a tantrum. 

Indeed.  If the shoe fits...

[roger001]

I'm afraid that if the cruise lines suddenly toss caution to the wind, lets all go sail, business as usual, after one or two cruises we might be right back where this al began.  The whole thing still sucks.  

[Daniel A]

7 minutes ago, roger001 said:

I'm afraid that if the cruise lines suddenly toss caution to the wind, lets all go sail, business as usual, after one or two cruises we might be right back where this al began.  The whole thing still sucks.  

I think what this will accomplish (pending a final outcome of the whole lawsuit) is that it will allow market forces to dictate the cruise lines safety criteria permitting the cruise lines to follow appropriate guidelines and discard some of the bureaucratic overreaching requirements.

 

Trust me, the cruise lines don't want to be sued for blithely ignoring sensible guidelines recommended by the CDC.  They want their ships to be safe and make sure their customers feel safe and secure when onboard. 

[Karaboudjan]

40 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

That's an interesting article.  I don't believe Judge Merryday will permit the CDC inflicting punishment on only those ships that do not comply with the CSO.  That on its face is making it a mandatory requirement rather than medical guidance.  It clearly flies in the face of the injunction.  The CDC response to the lifting of the stay sounds more like an intemperate child having a tantrum.  If CDC wants to implement these provisions across the board on all cruise ships, that's one thing, but this article says these rules will only apply to those ships not voluntarily complying with the CSO.

But the CDC is giving the cruise lines more flexibility in mask requirements under the CSO.  Enforcing the transit rule for a cruise ship that does not follow the CSO is just making them follow the same rules as everybody else (airlines, buses, trains) right?  I don't see how that would be considered a punishment.  

[Daniel A]

11 minutes ago, Karaboudjan said:

Enforcing the transit rule for a cruise ship that does not follow the CSO is just making them follow the same rules as everybody else (airlines, buses, trains) right?  I don't see how that would be considered a punishment.  

That's just the point.  They aren't making them follow the same rules as everybody else, it is now different rules for one group of cruise ships and a different set of rules for the rest of the cruise ships.  Obviously, this is a game of "play ball with me or else..." 

 

The CDC can only enforce these mask rules for the first and last 12 miles out of Florida.

[skatie]

If a ship incurs a large Covid outbreak is the state of Florida happy to take it back into port and accept all positive passengers back onto its soil/hospitals?

 

[At Sea At Peace]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

It clearly flies in the face of the injunction.  The CDC response to the lifting of the stay sounds more like an intemperate child having a tantrum.

 

Yep.

 

I'd expect the CDC to go ballistic (punitive regulatory authority) with the most (comparative to land based) identifiable outbreak on any cruise ship at each and every opportunity that it gets.

 

[BermudaBound2014]

When it's all said and done in the courts, the open market will dictate cruise line policy. If there is a niche population that only wants 100% vaccinated cruising, it will likely exist (if even on one or two ships) and visa/versa.  Follow the money.

[oteixeira]

Still don't think this will change much.  These lines want to be safe, they don't want to screw themselves by having a large outbreak onboard.  It may not be law now, but I don't think for a second this changes Carnival, Celebrity, or NCLs stance on vaccinated (95 or 100%) cruising in the near term.  

Cruise lines have always wanted to be overly safe, more so then almost any land vacation, this is no different.  

[BermudaBound2014]

8 minutes ago, oteixeira said:

Still don't think this will change much.  These lines want to be safe, they don't want to screw themselves by having a large outbreak onboard.  It may not be law now, but I don't think for a second this changes Carnival, Celebrity, or NCLs stance on vaccinated (95 or 100%) cruising in the near term.  

Cruise lines have always wanted to be overly safe, more so then almost any land vacation, this is no different.  

 

I agree, but would add that cruise lines want (need) to make money. Keeping people safe makes money.  They will likely keep the rules in place for a bit to ensure revenue and limit bad press. If the market supports keeping vaccination requirements (in other words, if people keep booking with vaccination rules) cruise lines will keep the requirements. 

[Navis]

3 hours ago, HuliHuli said:

Indeed, this is at the heart of the case Florida has brought and the precedent case that the Alabama/Georgia realtors brought regarding CDC's eviction Moratorium in which they argued,

"Finally, the Eviction Moratorium raises serious constitutional questions. If Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act confers such broad authority upon the CDC to adopt an eviction moratorium, the statute would violate the nondelegation doctrine because it contains no intelligible principle guiding the CDC’s exercise of its authority. The Eviction Moratorium is also unconstitutional because it effectuates a taking of private property without just compensation, violates procedural due process, and infringes on the right of access to the courts."

As I've written previously, this is not a health related debate (despite the fact that it involves the CDC in both cases), but rather a matter of constitutional law framing the boundaries all administrative agencies must operate within based upon the laws Congress passes.

Here, @Navis may wish to provide additional legal color, that is if he/she hasn't retired to the other bar where we all seek to be enjoying Boat Drinks. 😉

Haha, I wish I was on a ship somewhere right now! Not until 2022 for me, sadly. Other than my clerk experience, I really don’t have much relevant experience on this one. My practice is focused on multinational corporate M&A now. When I was clerking, we did hear a few en banc appeals of purported violations of the APA, but never one brought for exceeding delegated authority under the PHSA. That said, I have always thought the eviction moratorium might have been pushing the extreme limit of agency delegated power and I think the arguments made against such authority are quite strong (so I was not surprised to see the recent remand). 

 

As to the alternatively pled constitutional claims, I would not give them much weight at all. They were likely added primarily for forum shopping purposes so that those states would not be forced to file their claim in the DC Circuit, which has original jurisdiction on claims related solely to administrative matters. The southern states do not like DC Circuit and do everything they can to avoid filing there. By adding a constitutional claim or two to their pleadings they can avoid (or survive) a motion to transfer venue and thus have the whole case initially heard in a venue they deem more amenable to their arguments. 

[beanbeaner]

11 hours ago, armwinder said:

We have three cruises booked with NCL and were happy to see that 100% vaccination was required.  Unfortunately the rules changed mid stream and we are forced to cancel. Mixed vaccines are common in Canada and I have a Pfizer / Moderna mix.  NCL allow a mix in other parts of the world but not into or out of US ports. Things may change down the road and we are reluctant to change cruise lines as we have a long history with NCL. All other cruise lines do accept a Pfizer / Moderna mix.  

I would sit tight. I think they'll change once they have strong enough data.

[beanbeaner]

1 hour ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

When it's all said and done in the courts, the open market will dictate cruise line policy. If there is a niche population that only wants 100% vaccinated cruising, it will likely exist (if even on one or two ships) and visa/versa.  Follow the money.

Sure. I'm not sure it's all that niche, though.

[Navis]

41 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

I agree, but would add that cruise lines want (need) to make money. Keeping people safe makes money.  They will likely keep the rules in place for a bit to ensure revenue and limit bad press. If the market supports keeping vaccination requirements (in other words, if people keep booking with vaccination rules) cruise lines will keep the requirements. 

I agree. As with most commercial products, in general the market will dictate. The other variable here however are all the various port agreements the cruise lines have entered into … what do they require? What representations and covenants have the cruise lines needed to make to allow embarkation/disembarkation or itinerary stops? Have they made any promises about their vaccination practices? I think this must have a pretty material impact on practices as well .. the cruise we are on is not subject to the CSO at all as it embarks/disembarks outside the US and does not visit any US port. Yet our cruise line is starting up with practices that exceed the CSO standards. Now, as you point out, that could be for their own business purposes, but it could also be because those were the terms demanded by the countries on the itinerary for entry. 

 

We are already seeing the effects of some other variables play out in the Caribbean … ports are being dropped, sea days added as countries close their borders or add requirements for entry for which the cruise lines are not equipped to comply.

 

I’ve just accepted that for our cruise I’m going to have to check regularly from now until next winter and adjust as needed. I think vigilance and flexibility are going to be the name of the game for the next few years. Thankfully, our cruise line has a dedicated page for their cruises embarking from our location and they update it regularly so I feel like I know where to go to get the information we need.
 

As cruise lines begin to open up I hope they improve their communication practices … consistent and timely communication is going to be key.

[david_sobe]

Being a cruise related site you would think there are fans of cruise lines here.  I always see them pop up in having the cruise line's back if someone questions pricing or something else.  But why so many are rooting against the cruise lines in their policies trying to keep their customers safe and keeping themselves in business is beyond me 🙄🤔

[Oxo]

17 minutes ago, david_sobe said:

Being a cruise related site you would think there are fans of cruise lines here.  I always see them pop up in having the cruise line's back if someone questions pricing or something else.  But why so many are rooting against the cruise lines in their policies trying to keep their customers safe and keeping themselves in business is beyond me 🙄🤔

I, for one, are in total agreement with Cruise Lines requiring a 95% of vaccinated and a 5%  Unvaccinated.

 

Why should the vaccinated 95% have to wear a mask for the other 5% who will not get a vaccination? Yes, if the unvaccinated have a valid medical excuse, I can understand their reason for not getting vaccinated. Otherwise, sorry, you may take your own life and put it in danger, but don't put the others who have been vaccinated.

 

It is being proven daily, FL, TX, and MO; that those who are not vaccinated are the ones who are going into the hospitals and many dying. Why???  Then you have those that are in the hospital now wishes that they were vaccinated, too late for some. Life is too short. Lets not shorten it anymore. 

.

[RumRunner2021]

1 hour ago, beanbeaner said:

Sure. I'm not sure it's all that niche, though.

It's not.  I think the "niche" is the other side of the fence (those who want to wear masks and distance on a cruise ship so that they don't have to give up 30 minutes of their life to let some mean person stick a sharp needle in their arm).

[seemoreroyals]

Hoping there is some good news allowing NCL to keep their ships 100% vaccinated regardless of where on earth they sail. I could really care less who wins as long as the cruise ship I am going on is allowed to provide me with protection against delta and other covid variants. Unfortunately we will be cancelling if court rules NCL has to allow unvaccinateds on board.  Thankfully NCL is not requiring final pay until 60 days before sailing so we have until first part of October in our case to see what happens,  I think we will know much more by then.  Wife and I are both double vaxed and ready to go but I am reading about scenarios where this next wave which is just getting underway will be just as deadly or worse than anything we have been through so far.   All because there is a large population in our country that refuse to get vaxed.  Boy what a mess.  

[RumRunner2021]

43 minutes ago, seemoreroyals said:

Unfortunately we will be cancelling if court rules NCL has to allow unvaccinateds on board.  Thankfully NCL is not requiring final pay until 60 days before sailing so we have until first part of October in our case to see what happens,  I think we will know much more by then.

Are you sailing from Florida?  If not, I'm not aware of any court cases that are challenging NCL's rules.

[BermudaBound2014]

2 hours ago, david_sobe said:

Being a cruise related site you would think there are fans of cruise lines here.  I always see them pop up in having the cruise line's back if someone questions pricing or something else.  But why so many are rooting against the cruise lines in their policies trying to keep their customers safe and keeping themselves in business is beyond me 🙄🤔

I think those of you demanding 100% vaccinated ships are rooting against Industry success. Name an industry that alienates 50% of their customers and survives? Remember, those who are vaccinated are still the minority. Add in kids who can’t be vaccinated and the stats are probably closer to alienating 70%. Then consider all those who are vaccinated but willing to sail with others that aren’t. I would pose the case that Cruise lines can’t survive with only 30% of the market able to partake. Cruise line must figure out a way to increase their customer  base and keep people safe if they hope to weather this storm.