Federal Judge Grants NCL Preliminary Injunction v Florida

[firefly333]

Just now, RCCL Fan said:

 

 

I missed the part about vaccines required on specific sailings.  Where's that list??

Idk there is a list, but I read last week about st thomas only takes vaccinated I think. So cruises going there. Idk why they dont skip st thomas rather than last  minute change the rules and cancel unvaccinated.  Rcl is changing rules every day last week.

[LadyShiva]

4 minutes ago, RCCL Fan said:

 

 

I missed the part about vaccines required on specific sailings.  Where's that list??

If you are doing Europe, Alaska, or Caribbean cruises (for other than Covid vaccine!), this is not you.

 

If you are doing Asian, India, Middle East, or South American cruises -> MIGHT apply, check the countries you need Visas for (yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, etc).

Edited August 9, 2021 by LadyShiva
sorry, was responding based on originating post

[jrapps]

3 minutes ago, RCCL Fan said:

 

 

I missed the part about vaccines required on specific sailings.  Where's that list??

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/the-healthy-sail-center/getting-ready-to-cruise

 

Allure of the Seas and Symphony of the Seas Departures to St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands Between August 8 and October 31, 2021

For all Allure of the Seas and Symphony of the Seas sailings departing from Florida — the Government of the United States Virgin Islands has informed us of their plans to implement a new requirement that all passengers ages 12 and older traveling onboard a cruise ship must be fully vaccinated in order for the ship to be allowed entry into St. Thomas. This latest requirement will impact all cruise ships scheduled to call on St. Thomas in the near future. To comply with this requirement, guests ages 12 and older must provide documentation of full vaccination at the terminal as a condition to boarding. Guests under the age of 12 are not required to be vaccinated, but will be subject to our COVID-19 testing policy.

[smplybcause]

7 minutes ago, firefly333 said:

Idk there is a list, but I read last week about st thomas only takes vaccinated I think. So cruises going there. Idk why they dont skip st thomas rather than last  minute change the rules and cancel unvaccinated.  Rcl is changing rules every day last week.

 

Because I think they'd have to switch the sailings to Western. Puerto Rico will only let vax people off the ship. Tortola also has a all passengers must be vax for the ship to dock. They're switching out St Kitts. They're running out of islands they can visit on a 7 day cruise on the Eastern route. 

[emdia43]

So that means no children onboard NCL Ships?

[jrapps]

2 minutes ago, emdia43 said:

So that means no children onboard NCL Ships?

No children under 12, at least until the vaccine is approved for the 5-11 age range.

[Hoppy2cruise]

Royal wants the families so I don’t see 100% vaccinated cruises for them.  NCL said from the beginning that all would be vaccinated (100% - not 95%) so no exceptions for children.  That is why they went to court against Florida.  
 

Some ports in the USVI are requiring all over 12 to be vaccinated for the ship to dock.  We booked our cruise because we want to go to St Thomas so I certainly hope they don’t change their itinerary.  

[coffeebean]

8 hours ago, shutterbug63 said:

This is absolutely fabulous news and the right decision as far as I'm concerned.  I hope this lawsuit is successful and sets a precedent.  I'd sure feel a lot safer sailing on Oasis in January if it was a requirement. If not I may be jumping ship to NCL if they sail 100% vaxxed.

Royal has done test cruises out of Florida so the do not have to comply with high vaccination rates on their ships. Royal does not care to sail with 95% or higher vaccinated passengers. Royal prefers to allow as many un-vaccinated people on board their ships. This is what Royal wants and that is what they are doing. Disney did test cruises too for this purpose.

[coffeebean]

6 hours ago, firefly333 said:

Rcl choose to do unvaccinated right now when they could easily have cut back on unvaccinated.  I dont see why people assume rcl will cut off unvaccinated later on. They could do it right now if they wanted to. 

 

I dont understand why they arent doing vaccinated right now.

Royal is catering to the families and un-vaxxed customers. Good-bye Royal........for now. You were my favorite cruise line just slightly ahead of NCL. Not any more.

[jrapps]

2 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Royal has done test cruises out of Florida so the do not have to comply with high vaccination rates on their ships. Royal does not care to sail with 95% or higher vaccinated passengers. Royal prefers to allow as many un-vaccinated people on board their ships. This is what Royal wants and that is what they are doing. Disney did test cruises too for this purpose.

This is not entirely true. If Royal does not care to sail with 95% vaccinated, then why is that precisely what they are doing outside of FL. Here are the vaccination rules for Galveston, TX:

 

Vaccination Requirement for Cruises Departing Galveston, Texas

For cruises departing Galveston, Texas in August 2021 onboard Independence of the Seas, Royal Caribbean guests age 12 and older must present proof of COVID-19 vaccination with the final dose of their vaccine administered at least 14 days before sailing.

All crew onboard Independence of the Seas will be fully vaccinated.

 

So what is the difference, why require them in TX and not FL? Only one difference...the law that NCL just got an injunction against.

 

It is not hard to believe that if the law is unenforceable, that they would treat FL exactly the same as TX

 

[coffeebean]

3 hours ago, emdia43 said:

So that means no children onboard NCL Ships?

No children under 12 can sail on NCL ships. NCL is doing things right.

[At Sea At Peace]

Florida announced it will appeal to the 11th CC.  Expected.

 

The Judge's ruling was detailed and massive.  IMO, it wasn't written since the oral arguments.  It was in the can ready to issue.

 

It will be interesting.

 

IMO, I don't mind offering various cruises, 'fully vaccinated, 95% etc., as long as 'something other than fully vaccinated is offered.

 

NCL is a bit at risk on this.

Edited August 9, 2021 by At Sea At Peace

[coffeebean]

51 minutes ago, jrapps said:

This is not entirely true. If Royal does not care to sail with 95% vaccinated, then why is that precisely what they are doing outside of FL. Here are the vaccination rules for Galveston, TX:

 

Vaccination Requirement for Cruises Departing Galveston, Texas

For cruises departing Galveston, Texas in August 2021 onboard Independence of the Seas, Royal Caribbean guests age 12 and older must present proof of COVID-19 vaccination with the final dose of their vaccine administered at least 14 days before sailing.

All crew onboard Independence of the Seas will be fully vaccinated.

 

So what is the difference, why require them in TX and not FL? Only one difference...the law that NCL just got an injunction against.

 

It is not hard to believe that if the law is unenforceable, that they would treat FL exactly the same as TX

 

No clue other they did not want to tussle with the Florida law. Other lines cruising from Florida have been able to operate and verify vaccine proof to assure 95% or greater vaccinated on board. Royal took the easy way out.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, At Sea At Peace said:

Florida announced it will appeal to the 11th CC.  Expected.

I believe the judge anticipated this appeal.  Florida won an injunction in the 11th Circuit regarding the constitutionality of the CSO.  Therefore, the judge did not rule on NCL's argument that the Florida law is superseded by the CSO, which could have made a contradictory ruling to the 11th Circuit's decision that the CSO is legal.  So, now the 11th Circuit has to decide this on the free speech and dormant commerce clause arguments, not anything to do with the CDC or CSO.

[Pratique]

20 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I believe the judge anticipated this appeal.  Florida won an injunction in the 11th Circuit regarding the constitutionality of the CSO.  Therefore, the judge did not rule on NCL's argument that the Florida law is superseded by the CSO, which could have made a contradictory ruling to the 11th Circuit's decision that the CSO is legal.  So, now the 11th Circuit has to decide this on the free speech and dormant commerce clause arguments, not anything to do with the CDC or CSO.

The standard for the preliminary injunction is likelihood of success on the merits, so the likelihood of success on the preemption claim is pretty low right now. But it would have been interesting to see what the 11th Circuit said about it, because there is no assurance that the same three-judge panel will hear this appeal. And if there was a split, all the more reason to go to SCOTUS.

 

EDIT to add: the 11th Circuit did not rule that the CSO was not legal, they just denied the request to stay the injunction pending appeal. The appeal is still ongoing as far as I know.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Pratique

[mayleeman]

26 minutes ago, Pratique said:

The standard for the preliminary injunction is likelihood of success on the merits, so the likelihood of success on the preemption claim is pretty low right now. But it would have been interesting to see what the 11th Circuit said about it, because there is no assurance that the same three-judge panel will hear this appeal. And if there was a split, all the more reason to go to SCOTUS.

 

EDIT to add: the 11th Circuit did not rule that the CSO was not legal, they just denied the request to stay the injunction pending appeal. The appeal is still ongoing as far as I know.

I think a split between 2 panels of a single appellate court would first result in the losing party in one of the cases filing for an en banc review by the full court. SCOTUS is happy to review splits between circuits, but I think they would send any appeal based on an intra-panel split back to the full 11th.

 

But I think both cases are many months from being final at the district level. 

[time4u2go]

52 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

Yes, and NCL filed in the district where their headquarters is located, and where the majority of their cruises would be embarking.  Florida, however, in their suit against the CDC did not file in the district where the state capital is, nor where the cruise lines are headquartered, or where the majority of cruises sail out of (remember, the state was claiming economic hardship, so it would logically be filed where the hardship was greatest).  Which side was "venue shopping"?

That's a great point.

[coldflame]

44 minutes ago, Pratique said:

The standard for the preliminary injunction is likelihood of success on the merits, so the likelihood of success on the preemption claim is pretty low right now. But it would have been interesting to see what the 11th Circuit said about it, because there is no assurance that the same three-judge panel will hear this appeal. And if there was a split, all the more reason to go to SCOTUS.

 

EDIT to add: the 11th Circuit did not rule that the CSO was not legal, they just denied the request to stay the injunction pending appeal. The appeal is still ongoing as far as I know.

 

 

Quick Note: The reason for the quick decision is this was expedited and order planned to be given shortly after hearing. There's no surprise in the promptness. Florida did not want this case to be heard at all. First tried to move venues, then tried to dismiss it altogether two days before hearing. One failed the other mooted.

[Pratique]

3 minutes ago, coldflame said:

 

 

Quick Note: The reason for the quick decision is this was expedited and order planned to be given shortly after hearing. There's no surprise in the promptness. Florida did not want this case to be heard at all. First tried to move venues, then tried to dismiss it altogether two days before hearing. One failed the other mooted.

The state should have expected someone to challenge the law sooner or later. Turns out NCL was the first to take a swipe at it, but it could have been any business in Florida bringing it on the same constitutional grounds of free speech.

[At Sea At Peace]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

 

Yes, and NCL filed in the district where their headquarters is located, and where the majority of their cruises would be embarking.  Florida, however, in their suit against the CDC did not file in the district where the state capital is, nor where the cruise lines are headquartered, or where the majority of cruises sail out of (remember, the state was claiming economic hardship, so it would logically be filed where the hardship was greatest).  Which side was "venue shopping"?

 

14 minutes ago, time4u2go said:

That's a great point.

 

The CDC (and defendants) did not object to the Middle District of Florida venue.  Also, regardless of the three (3) US District Courts in Florida, all appeal to the 11th.  So,  really not much to see here.

[joepeka]

The expected next step has been taken:

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/25655-florida-to-appeal-ruling-on-vaccine-passports-for-norwegian-cruise-line-holdings.html

[coldflame]

53 minutes ago, joepeka said:

The expected next step has been taken:

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/25655-florida-to-appeal-ruling-on-vaccine-passports-for-norwegian-cruise-line-holdings.html

 

It was indeed fully expected. But I don't think it has happened yet. Not seeing it in any dockets or even a notice of appeal, as of this writing.

[hal2008]

This post is not a political comment.

Not against or in favor of any opinion.

 

Was wondering if the following can work:

 

For many years, restaurants used to offer smoking and nonsmoking sections until everyone got wiser (or were forced to do so by the combination of social awareness and free market forces)

 

Can RCL offer both type of cruises?

 

One with only those who are vaccinated, RT-PCR cleared within 72 hours of boarding AND tested everyday on board.  No mask needed except in few high density indoor areas like theaters/casinos.

 

Other for unvaccinated with whatever precautions that crowd is willing to abide by (or none). Cruise workers may need to be paid huge hazard pay and that should be reflected in cruise fare.

 

If market forces support both cruise types then so be it. If not, at least one group will shut up.

 

Just a thought. Not trying to offend anyone.

 

[flamingos]

8 minutes ago, hal2008 said:

This post is not a political comment.

Not against or in favor of any opinion.

 

Was wondering if the following can work:

 

For many years, restaurants used to offer smoking and nonsmoking sections until everyone got wiser (or were forced to do so by the combination of social awareness and free market forces)

 

Can RCL offer both type of cruises?

 

One with only those who are vaccinated, RT-PCR cleared within 72 hours of boarding AND tested everyday on board.  No mask needed except in few high density indoor areas like theaters/casinos.

 

Other for unvaccinated with whatever precautions that crowd is willing to abide by (or none). Cruise workers may need to be paid huge hazard pay and that should be reflected in cruise fare.

 

If market forces support both cruise types then so be it. If not, at least one group will shut up.

 

Just a thought. Not trying to offend anyone.

 

How is that fair to the crew?

[joepeka]

11 minutes ago, hal2008 said:

This post is not a political comment.

Not against or in favor of any opinion.

 

Was wondering if the following can work:

 

For many years, restaurants used to offer smoking and nonsmoking sections until everyone got wiser (or were forced to do so by the combination of social awareness and free market forces)

 

Can RCL offer both type of cruises?

 

One with only those who are vaccinated, RT-PCR cleared within 72 hours of boarding AND tested everyday on board.  No mask needed except in few high density indoor areas like theaters/casinos.

 

Other for unvaccinated with whatever precautions that crowd is willing to abide by (or none). Cruise workers may need to be paid huge hazard pay and that should be reflected in cruise fare.

 

If market forces support both cruise types then so be it. If not, at least one group will shut up.

 

Just a thought. Not trying to offend anyone.

 

It is not an idea without some merit but in practice probably would ultimately prove untenable. Thinking back to Carnival's experiment with a totally non-smoking ship (the Paradise) back in the late 90's, it worked for a short while then proved to be unprofitable so the non-smoking policy was dropped.

Edited August 10, 2021 by joepeka