FLORIDA Files Appeal of NCL Case to 11th Circuit

[At Sea At Peace]

As expected.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by At Sea At Peace

[MichiganBound]

For the legal eagles on here, how long should we expect the appeals process to take?

[zerooveride]

12 hours ago, MichiganBound said:

For the legal eagles on here, how long should we expect the appeals process to take?

I think the Florida v. CDC case took about a month for the 11th Circuit to decide whether or not to lift or keep the preliminary injunction.

[EDIT: One thing to note however is that the Court had a month to decide without it affecting anything as the preliminary injunction in the CDC case was not an immediate preliminary injunction and was not set to go into effect until about a month after issuance. This new order when into effect on the day it was rendered, so they may act quicker.]

 

The difference here is that this is a constitutional 1st Amendment claim and I don't see them overturning the injunction. NCL has also made a Commerce Clause claim as well and, again, I don't see them touching it. Just my opinion.

Edited August 11, 2021 by zerooveride
Added information

[Sheshefran]

Is it pretty safe to say the Gem will sail on the 15th?

[zerooveride]

1 hour ago, Sheshefran said:

Is it pretty safe to say the Gem will sail on the 15th?

The 11th Circuit could 

 

17 hours ago, At Sea At Peace said:

As expected.

 

 

This appears just to be a Notice of Appeal, which is required to be able to appeal to the Circuit Court; a formality and not an actual appeal. I just looked in PACER and do not see an actual filing yet with the 11th Circuit yet. It could be coming later today or in a day or two, but until the actual appeal is filed, it is difficult to even guess at a resolution date/timetable. In most cases a Notice of Appeal is filed automatically by one of the parties to preserve their appeal rights. Even if notice is filed, it doesn't necessarily mean that an actual appeal will be filed; but I would be shocked if Florida did not file one (unless they have reevaluated and determined that the appeal would be frivolous and has no path to success). 

[Oceansaway17]

18 hours ago, cruiserbear55 said:

The first ship will be the Gem, sailing from Miami on Sunday, 8/15. (5 days)

aw GEM

Makes me think of GET ME MOVING  G E M.  get it.  ha ha  

very happy that NCL is starting up.

Encore sitting pretty right now for a few hours in Juneau on PTZTV.com

[Sheshefran]

Thanks for the explanation. 

[BEAV]

Can NCL sail from Florida with 100% vaccinated before the appellate decision is reached?

[cruiserbear55]

7 minutes ago, BEAV said:

tNCL sail from Florida with 100% vaccinated before the appellate decision is reached?

NCL was granted a temporary injunction, so my guess would be until the appeals court decides on the outcome of the appeal, temporarily they can sail fully vaccinated.

[DCGuy64]

1 hour ago, cruiserbear55 said:

NCL was granted a temporary injunction, so my guess would be until the appeals court decides on the outcome of the appeal, temporarily they can sail fully vaccinated.

That’s my understanding, too. I think the judge’s injunction prevents FL from enforcing its law for the time being. 

[Turtles06]

2 hours ago, BEAV said:

Can NCL sail from Florida with 100% vaccinated before the appellate decision is reached?

 

2 hours ago, cruiserbear55 said:

NCL was granted a temporary injunction, so my guess would be until the appeals court decides on the outcome of the appeal, temporarily they can sail fully vaccinated.

Yes, that’s correct. The preliminary injunction prohibits Florida from enforcing its law against NCL, which means that NCL can require all passengers to provide proof that they have been vaccinated. 

[RocketMan275]

2 hours ago, cruiserbear55 said:

NCL was granted a temporary injunction, so my guess would be until the appeals court decides on the outcome of the appeal, temporarily they can sail fully vaccinated.

It's my understanding that whether the lines sail fully vaccinated isn't the issue.

The issue is whether the cruise lines can insist on passengers proving their vaccination status.

[Turtles06]

26 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

It's my understanding that whether the lines sail fully vaccinated isn't the issue.

The issue is whether the cruise lines can insist on passengers proving their vaccination status.

That’s correct.  I think folks have used “fully vaccinated” as a shorthand; it’s unlikely that a cruise line wanting to sail with all pax vaccinated will just take people’s word for it. 

[junglejane]

So far Florida has not asked the 11th Circuit to grant a stay or do anything else quickly.  They've just filed a notice of appeal, period.  The court will move fast only if Florida asks them to.  Otherwise the case will follow the normal, slow appellate track.  Which may actually be a situation that all parties are content with, at least for now.  

[coffeebean]

8 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

It's my understanding that whether the lines sail fully vaccinated isn't the issue.

The issue is whether the cruise lines can insist on passengers proving their vaccination status.

That seems to be a conundrum. One does not occur unless the other occurs too. The honor system does not work in this case. In order for ships to sail 100% vaccinated, proof of vaccine is a must from every passenger and crew member.

[Daniel A]

16 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

That’s my understanding, too. I think the judge’s injunction prevents FL from enforcing its law for the time being. 

Just to clarify, the injunction prohibits Florida from enforcing the law against NCL, Oceania and Regent alone.  The law is still in effect for every other business (including cruise lines) doing business in Florida.  I would be curious to see if Florida uses that fact as a 14th Amendment claim since now the judge is not equally enforcing the law.  Just a thought, not a prediction.  🙂

[jrapps]

8 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Just to clarify, the injunction prohibits Florida from enforcing the law against NCL, Oceania and Regent alone.  The law is still in effect for every other business (including cruise lines) doing business in Florida.  I would be curious to see if Florida uses that fact as a 14th Amendment claim since now the judge is not equally enforcing the law.  Just a thought, not a prediction.  🙂

I don't think you can use a 14th amendment claim against an injunction, if you could then the CDC would have used that claim against the injunction FL won on their lawsuit as it would have equally violated equal protection.

 

As for this injunction, technically yes the only one's to currently benefit from it are NCL, Oceania and Regent. Will be interesting to see if any other cruise lines either join the case, or attempt to require vaccines anyway citing this injunction as precedent.

 

I think everyone is just dancing on eggshells right now trying to figure out where all the chips fall.

[DCGuy64]

57 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Just to clarify, the injunction prohibits Florida from enforcing the law against NCL, Oceania and Regent alone.  The law is still in effect for every other business (including cruise lines) doing business in Florida.  I would be curious to see if Florida uses that fact as a 14th Amendment claim since now the judge is not equally enforcing the law.  Just a thought, not a prediction.  🙂

Yes, good point.

[jrapps]

Has FL actually filed the appeal yet, or just their intent to appeal?

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, jrapps said:

I don't think you can use a 14th amendment claim against an injunction, if you could then the CDC would have used that claim against the injunction FL won on their lawsuit as it would have equally violated equal protection.

You may be correct here, I was just musing.  I actually considered that but I viewed the difference in that the CSO is not a law it's a bureaucratic order, whereas the NCL case is actually looking to overturn a law.

 

Time will tell...

[Turtles06]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

Just to clarify, the injunction prohibits Florida from enforcing the law against NCL, Oceania and Regent alone.  The law is still in effect for every other business (including cruise lines) doing business in Florida.  I would be curious to see if Florida uses that fact as a 14th Amendment claim since now the judge is not equally enforcing the law.  Just a thought, not a prediction.  🙂

The 14th Amendment has no relevance here, nor is the preliminary injunction about equal enforcement of the law. NCLH brought a challenge to the Florida law as it is applied to them (not a facial challenge), and secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law against them while the lawsuit is pending.  Any other cruise line (or other business) is free to challenge the law as it is applied to them as well.