Court rules for Florida in cruise case, grants injunction stopping CDC order...

[harkinmr]

15 minutes ago, wrk2cruise said:

From the way I understood it the injunction only makes the CSO unenforceable in FL.   I don't think it has any effect on Alaska sailings.

If it is unenforceable in Florida it is unenforceable everywhere.  The judge has determined that the CDC exceeded its statutory mandate, therefore the CSO will become null and void.  It is a victory for Florida in that it brought the lawsuit, but the impact of the rule is nationwide, including for Alaska.

[graphicguy]

1 hour ago, graphicguy said:

It was an email that I could not cut and paste.  Paraphrased it’s major points above.

Finally got it to paste.....my name has been deleted is the only change to what was sent to me this a.m. from Celebrity....

 

Masks are required in the embarkation/debarkation terminal, and may be required at ports of call depending on local government regulations. Following CDC guidelines, masks will not be required for vaccinated guests and children 15 and younger.

.......... all guests age 12 and older must be fully vaccinated. We will require documentation of full vaccination from all guests who are eligible, in the form of an original vaccination card. Guests that decline to provide proof of vaccination or provide insufficient documentation will be considered unvaccinated and will have to adhere to additional requirements including SARS-CoV-2 testing (at their own expense), and additional protocols including wearing masks at all times on board except while eating, drinking or in their stateroom and while ashore. Testing will be complimentary for children who do not yet meet the age eligibility criteria to be vaccinated and for guests who are unable to be vaccinated.

Unvaccinated guests may be restricted from going ashore depending on local government restrictions.

...........I hope this information has been of assistance. If you have additional questions please let us know at 844-418-6824.

[LGW59]

7 minutes ago, graphicguy said:

Finally got it to paste.....my name has been deleted is the only change to what was sent to me this a.m. from Celebrity....

 

Masks are required in the embarkation/debarkation terminal, and may be required at ports of call depending on local government regulations. Following CDC guidelines, masks will not be required for vaccinated guests and children 15 and younger.

.......... all guests age 12 and older must be fully vaccinated. We will require documentation of full vaccination from all guests who are eligible, in the form of an original vaccination card. Guests that decline to provide proof of vaccination or provide insufficient documentation will be considered unvaccinated and will have to adhere to additional requirements including SARS-CoV-2 testing (at their own expense), and additional protocols including wearing masks at all times on board except while eating, drinking or in their stateroom and while ashore. Testing will be complimentary for children who do not yet meet the age eligibility criteria to be vaccinated and for guests who are unable to be vaccinated.

Unvaccinated guests may be restricted from going ashore depending on local government restrictions.

...........I hope this information has been of assistance. If you have additional questions please let us know at 844-418-6824.

A poster who is currently on Apex, said they never asked to see the card.

[latserrof]

17 hours ago, colliece said:

That was really worth reading and though I am not a lawyer, thought it explained the arguments pretty clearly.  Thank you for sharing.

https://www.scribd.com/document/512299252/Florida-vs-CDC#from_embed

 

17 hours ago, colliece said:

That was really worth reading and though I am not a lawyer, thought it explained the arguments pretty clearly.  Thank you for sharing.

Yes, thanks. I am a lawyer, and I was surprised by the judge's gratuitous attacks on the CDC, which, along with other parts of his opinion,  makes me think he would not accept any modified order the CDC might respond with.  The CDC would probably have better luck with an appeal.

Edited June 19, 2021 by latserrof

[graphicguy]

5 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

A poster who is currently on Apex, said they never asked to see the card.

How did they designate them?  Vaccinated?  Unvaccinated?

[K12Guy]

15 hours ago, colliece said:

I will wait to see what happens, but all I heard for the last month is Florida has no chance of winning and the Governor is going to have mud on his face, been hearing that for the last 15 months

I understand what you're writing about. I've been asking my wife (not an attorney, either) if the CDC really has enforcement authority of any kind. Apparently not. But, the media hype about this being a big win for Florida sure leaves a lot of questions about how it will actually benefit the people of the state, other than the governor.

[K12Guy]

13 hours ago, wrk2cruise said:

But what is stopping sailing this summer with the current instructions?   Celebrity is sailing 1 ship next next week and the second one a few weeks later?   That's all Celebrity has planned for USA this summer.    Alaska was nuked by PVSA, not the CDC.

Alaska sailings from Seattle start on 23 July, due to the temporary suspension until March 1, 2022 of PVSA requirements.

[colliece]

1 hour ago, harkinmr said:

The CSO remains in place until July 18.  It could be replaced by a newer version negotiated during mediation and then approved by the court.  The ruling could also be appealed and the judge's order stayed until resolution of the appeal.  More flux.  Any test cruises planned for anytime before July 18 will likely proceed.

 

What happens with the CSO will ultimately impact the threshold of infection provisions, so a turn back may not be required unless decided upon by the cruise ship itself.  The CDC's authority under the VSP remains in place notwithstanding yesterday's ruling, so theoretically if there is a major outbreak on board the ship could be quarantined at the port when it returns.

 

Alaska, I think, is a question mark.  The legislation requires a Conditional Sailing Certificate to take advantage of the exemption.  If the CSO is finally declared null and void, there is no Certificate. The legislation would have to be amended.  If it remains as "guidance only", there may be a way for ships to secure the Certificate voluntarily.  We will see.

That is totally not true, and perhaps you should actually read the ruling.  The order only applies to Florida as they have been granted standing.  Cruises in other districts will continue under the current conditions.

[LGW59]

19 minutes ago, graphicguy said:

How did they designate them?  Vaccinated?  Unvaccinated?

Here is her post: 

• #14   
•  

Here’s one thing that’s sizeable, that I need to share now and separately. No one asked for or validated vaccination. Not at a single checkpoint. Not a visual inspection or a verbal attestation. Literally anyone could be on this ship. While it’s not a big deal to some, given the test was administered to almost all folks + the number of passengers — it is a big deal to those of us who intentionally booked a vaccinated cruise. Here’s hoping that for future cruises they actually vet folks.

[K12Guy]

4 hours ago, hcat said:

Most everything  here in NY is open and unmasked..honor system  for vaccine proof.

What is local opinion about how soon Bayonne may open for sailing?

[Moonarino]

51 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

I think the quote you are referring to by Dr. Walensky was from March and warned of "impending doom".  But since then CDC and Dr Walensky have really modified their positions to take the high rate of vaccinations into their communications and recommendations in the US since that time.  We vaccinated folks are doing most things now in a pretty normal-life way.

 

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210329/cdc-directdor-warns-of-impending-doom-as-cases-rise

That's it exactly. I took issue with her phrasing.

 

[graphicguy]

6 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

Here is her post: 

 

• #14   
•  

Here’s one thing that’s sizeable, that I need to share now and separately. No one asked for or validated vaccination. Not at a single checkpoint. Not a visual inspection or a verbal attestation. Literally anyone could be on this ship. While it’s not a big deal to some, given the test was administered to almost all folks + the number of passengers — it is a big deal to those of us who intentionally booked a vaccinated cruise. Here’s hoping that for future cruises they actually vet folks.

Interesting.   Not sure of the rules and regs where she's embarked from.

 

I guess if someone wanted to take the chance Celebrity won't check their vaccination status, and subject themselves to the extra charges for extra testing, the mask wearing requirements and being excluded from parts of the ship, have at it.

 

Me?  No way I'd take that chance.

[Ken the cruiser]

11 minutes ago, colliece said:

That is totally not true, and perhaps you should actually read the ruling.  The order only applies to Florida as they have been granted standing.  Cruises in other districts will continue under the current conditions.

Would it be possible for you to post the paragraph in the ruling that confirms this?

[harkinmr]

3 minutes ago, colliece said:

That is totally not true, and perhaps you should actually read the ruling.  The order only applies to Florida as they have been granted standing.  Cruises in other districts will continue under the current conditions.

And that is "totally not true".  Florida was granted standing to bring the case, because standing was challenged by the CDC.  That does not impact the ruling on the CSO itself.  The judge granted injunctive relief based on the claim that the CSO violated the provisions of its statutory authority.  The judge ruled that the CSO remains in place until July 18 and thereafter is "guidance" only as it applies to the cruise lines, unless replaced by an alternative acceptable order.  If it is unconstitutional for application to one state, it is unconstitutional for application to any state.  

[LGW59]

2 minutes ago, graphicguy said:

Interesting.   Not sure of the rules and regs where she's embarked from.

 

I guess if someone wanted to take the chance Celebrity won't check their vaccination status, and subject themselves to the extra charges for extra testing, the mask wearing requirements and being excluded from parts of the ship, have at it.

 

Me?  No way I'd take that chance.

I’m totally with you there!

[graphicguy]

4 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

I’m totally with you there!

The other question I have, at least among the most vocal here, I haven't heard of one person who is planning to cruise unvaccinated.  

[K12Guy]

1 hour ago, wrk2cruise said:

From the way I understood it the injunction only makes the CSO unenforceable in FL.   I don't think it has any effect on Alaska sailings.

That's my expectation, as well. But, I know nothing about anything and sometimes less than that!

[DallasGuy75219]

3 minutes ago, graphicguy said:

The other question I have, at least among the most vocal here, I haven't heard of one person who is planning to cruise unvaccinated.  

Check the now locked Royal thread on the same topic. Before things got ugly and turned to personal attacks, some posters were asking if/when, hoping, or assuming COVID protocols (e.g., vaccination requirements, masking onboard, etc.) would go away due to the injunction.

[cscurlock]

12 minutes ago, K12Guy said:

That's my expectation, as well. But, I know nothing about anything and sometimes less than that!

If the ATRA requires a CSO certificate and no one can give them a certificate because of this ruling the whole bill is dead.  Congress will have to pass a new law and hopefully ratify the CDC authority more explicitly this time so judges don't get confused.  

[K12Guy]

8 minutes ago, DallasGuy75219 said:

some posters were asking if/when, hoping, or assuming COVID protocols (e.g., vaccination requirements, masking onboard, etc.) would go away due to the injunction.

On board protocol can, and will be, much tighter than CDC requirements if cruise lines are forced to accept non-vaccinated passengers, as in Florida.

The judge's decision about the injunction really has nothing to with on-board protocol since the ships are flagged and regulated by other countries and are just docked at a U.S. port.

 

Just my lay opinion, however.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, latserrof said:

https://www.scribd.com/document/512299252/Florida-vs-CDC#from_embed

 

Yes, thanks. I am a lawyer, and I was surprised by the judge's gratuitous attacks on the CDC, which, along with other parts of his opinion,  makes me think he would not accept any modified order the CDC might respond with.  The CDC would probably have better luck with an appeal.

The Judge went to school in Florida, experience before being appointed a federal judge was a private practice in Tampa.  Really not surprised he sided with the state and seemed to ignore the international vs inside state aspect of the CDC's authority.  I expect that you will see an appeal sometime in the next week or so.  

[graphicguy]

1 hour ago, DallasGuy75219 said:

Check the now locked Royal thread on the same topic. Before things got ugly and turned to personal attacks, some posters were asking if/when, hoping, or assuming COVID protocols (e.g., vaccination requirements, masking onboard, etc.) would go away due to the injunction.

I read some of that.  Still haven’t heard of anyone who is going to subject themselves to the extra costs and limitations of sailing unvaccinated!…here or anywhere else.

[Turtles06]

2 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Would it be possible for you to post the paragraph in the ruling that confirms this?

 

I'm not the poster you asked, but the language of the ruling you are looking for is at page 123 and says this: "Florida's motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, and CDC is preliminarily enjoined from enforcing against a cruise ship arriving in, within, or departing from a port in Florida the conditional sailing order and the later measures . . . ."  (Emphasis added.)    As previously discussed, the court stayed the preliminary injunction until July 18, 2021 (which means that is is not in effect now).

 

As others have noted, the full ruling is here:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/512299252/Florida-vs-CDC#from_embed

[colliece]

2 hours ago, harkinmr said:

And that is "totally not true".  Florida was granted standing to bring the case, because standing was challenged by the CDC.  That does not impact the ruling on the CSO itself.  The judge granted injunctive relief based on the claim that the CSO violated the provisions of its statutory authority.  The judge ruled that the CSO remains in place until July 18 and thereafter is "guidance" only as it applies to the cruise lines, unless replaced by an alternative acceptable order.  If it is unconstitutional for application to one state, it is unconstitutional for application to any state.  

Well I am not a lawyer, but here is the wording used by the judge, "Because of (1) Florida’s probability of success on the merits, (2) the imminent threat of irreparable injury to Florida, (3) the comparative injury depending on whether an injunction issues, and (4) the imminent and material threat to the public interest, Florida’s motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED and CDC is PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing against a cruise ship arriving in, within, or departing from a port in Florida the conditional sailing order and the later measures (technical guidelines, manuals, and the like)."

 

He states pretty clearly this ruling only applies to sailing to or from Florida.  But a legal expert may know different, but the ruling does not apply to the rest of the country.

[Turtles06]

1 minute ago, colliece said:

He states pretty clearly this ruling only applies to sailing to or from Florida.  But a legal expert may know different, but the ruling does not apply to the rest of the country.

 

You are correct.  The court said it expressly in the part you have quoted (and that I quoted in my comment 127 above) -- the preliminary injunction (stayed until July 18) applies ONLY to "a cruise ship arriving in, within, or departing from a port in Florida."