Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, nocl said:

I will also note that the State of Florida just requested that the NCL case filed in the Southern District be moved to Merryday's court.  

From a legal standpoint, this request makes some sense.  Part of NCL's position against Florida is that the Florida law is illegal since it violates CDC's rules.  How can you have one Federal Court ruling based on violation of rules promulgated by the CDC and another Federal Court ruling CDC lacked the authority to promulgate the rules in the first place?  Florida is a litigant in both related lawsuits and it makes some sense to consolidate the cases since NCL opened the door by claiming Florida is forcing NCL to violate (questionable?) CDC regulations.

 

Before you suggest the case should be transferred from Merryday to the Southern District, the CDC is not a party to the NCL litigation and can't ask for consolidation of the two suits.  Florida can make the request for reassignment - at this point, why not go with a court already on the record that it sees value to Florida's stance?

 

Am I 100% correct?  I don't know, this is just how it all appears to me and I've explained my rationale.  I think when the 11th circuit opinions come out we should know better what's happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A last minute stay, with a one-page ruling, with no explanation, and a dissent speaks to a purely procedural stay by the 11th Circuit.  It can be either a federal court deference to the US OR an ‘invitation’ for Florida to petition for an en banc review.


This is not a ruling on any merits of the case.  It is a stay on the ruling to suspend the mandatory nature of the CSO on July 18.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, kelleherdl said:

A last minute stay, with a one-page ruling, with no explanation, and a dissent speaks to a purely procedural stay by the 11th Circuit.  It can be either a federal court deference to the US OR an ‘invitation’ for Florida to petition for an en banc review.


This is not a ruling on any merits of the case.  It is a stay on the ruling to suspend the mandatory nature of the CSO on July 18.

While the initial stay ruling did not comment on the merits of the underlying case, there will be opinions to follow which will likely address both the merits and the issuance of the preliminary injunction. I think we have to reserve any judgments as to the impact of the ruling until we see the rationale of the court. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No surprise: Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday vowed to seek — to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary — a reversal of a Saturday night court ruling that allows a federal health agency’s authority over the cruise industry to remain in place.

 

This will take some time. And, the Supreme Court -- as previously noted -- decides which cases it hears. If it opts not to hear a case, which is most of them, then the lower court ruling stands. Not clear if Florida will seek an en banc review first. Also up to the court.

Edited by voyageur9
adds details
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, voyageur9 said:

No surprise: Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday vowed to seek — to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary — a reversal of a Saturday night court ruling that allows a federal health agency’s authority over the cruise industry to remain in place.

 

This will take some time. And, the Supreme Court -- as previously noted -- decided which cases it hears. If it declines, then the lower court ruling stands.

To be clear, any decision by the court immediately below the Supremes will be the one that stands if the Supreme Court refuses to take the case. So, if the Court of Appeals rules in favor of the CDC power to regulate the cruise industry, and the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the ruling in favor of the CDC will be the one that takes effect.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

To be clear, any decision by the court immediately below the Supremes will be the one that stands if the Supreme Court refuses ....

... precisely. Much better stated than my previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, leerathje said:

Hard to believe....I started this thread a month ago today.  Never in a million years did I think it would still be active, never mind be sitting at 11 pages!  Goes to show that people still have very strong opinions, both for and against.

 

L.

 

 

My thoughts exactly when I saw it again at the top of the board.  I left the discussion weeks ago because my head was spinning, as it's doing again today on this latest news.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

 if the Court of Appeals rules in favor of the CDC power to regulate the cruise industry, and the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the ruling in favor of the CDC will be the one that takes effect.

So that the waters aren't getting muddied, the Court of Appeals is only addressing the preliminary injunction.  Judge Merryday's court will still be the court that tries the lawsuit against the CDC.  The Court of Appeals cannot rule that the CDC has the power to regulate the cruise industry when that is not the issue on their docket.  They can only say "yes" or "no" to the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Merryday remaining in effect over the course of the mediation and trial on the facts which will still take place in Merryday's courtroom.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, voyageur9 said:

Not clear if Florida will seek an en banc review first. Also up to the court.

“So we are absolutely going to pursue to get the state removed, either at the full 11th circuit or at the US Supreme Court,” DeSantis said."

 

Gov. DeSantis ‘disappointed’ by decision to stay ruling to lift CDC no sail order (clickorlando.com)

 

That sounds pretty certain that Florida is going to petition for an en banc review of the 3 judge panel's decision.  And the beat goes on... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

So that the waters aren't getting muddied, the Court of Appeals is only addressing the preliminary injunction.  Judge Merryday's court will still be the court that tries the lawsuit against the CDC.  The Court of Appeals cannot rule that the CDC has the power to regulate the cruise industry when that is not the issue on their docket.  They can only say "yes" or "no" to the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Merryday remaining in effect over the course of the mediation and trial on the facts which will still take place in Merryday's courtroom.

And you are saying CDC won't appeal Merrydale's decision up the chain...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CruiserBruce said:

And you are saying CDC won't appeal Merrydale's decision up the chain...

Not at all.  I'm just explaining what is currently happening with the injunction.  The trial hasn't even started yet.  I am curious to know if the appellate panel is also staying the part of the injunction requiring the parties back into mediation.  That would seem to me to be unproductive and a flaw in issuing a full stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Not at all.  I'm just explaining what is currently happening with the injunction.  The trial hasn't even started yet.  I am curious to know if the appellate panel is also staying the part of the injunction requiring the parties back into mediation.  That would seem to me to be unproductive and a flaw in issuing a full stay.

It was unproductive when the trial court judge did it as well...both times. Without making any premature assumptions about the appellate court opinions, it is possible that they could comment on the analysis and rationale used by Judge Merryday for purposes of issuing the preliminary injunction. That, in turn, could impact the trial on the merits. I would also assume that the CDC would further appeal any unfavorable trial court verdict.  This is far from over no matter how the chips fall. By the time there is a resolution, the CSO will have expired. The resolution will, however, impact the CDC and the cruise lines going forward when the next pandemic hits. 

Edited by harkinmr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

By the time there is a resolution, the CSO will have expired. 

Why do you believe that?  They've extended the No Sail Orders (the CSO by another name) a few times already.  You don't think they'll do it again?  Even @nocl stated the CDC could extend the CSO beyond November 1.  I think mediation was only tried once.  The second order to return to mediation was contained in the injunction presently at issue.  That is the injunction that just got another stay from the appellate court, so I'm not sure they ever returned for more mediation as the injunction hasn't taken effect yet.

 

But you're right about future implications.  I wouldn't be surprised to see legislation in Congress codifying one side of the issue or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see legislation in Congress

Boy, I sure would, we can't even get Congress to do stuff that is meaningful to a majority of citizens.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, grsnovi said:

Boy, I sure would, we can't even get Congress to do stuff that is meaningful to a majority of citizens.

Yeah, but they did manage to push through the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act pretty fast.  Maybe there is a small glimmer of hope yet...😒

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Why do you believe that?  They've extended the No Sail Orders (the CSO by another name) a few times already.  You don't think they'll do it again?  Even @nocl stated the CDC could extend the CSO beyond November 1.  I think mediation was only tried once.  The second order to return to mediation was contained in the injunction presently at issue.  That is the injunction that just got another stay from the appellate court, so I'm not sure they ever returned for more mediation as the injunction hasn't taken effect yet.

 

But you're right about future implications.  I wouldn't be surprised to see legislation in Congress codifying one side of the issue or another.

Any extension of the CSO will depend upon circumstances at the time. I do not predict that one will take place simply “because”. That is a scare tactic used on a regular basis and lacks context. If conditions deteriorate here because of continued vaccine hesitancy and new variants, I would expect a continuation of vaccine requirements and protocols on a voluntary basis by the cruise lines. I see any sort of further no sail order to only be issued under extraordinary circumstances. 
 

Mediation was tried twice.  The second time was when the judge ordered the parties back to mediation to negotiate a replacement CSO while his injunction was stayed.  That obviously didn’t work either.  I don’t anticipate that the appellate court would further engage with that type of resolution. The issue wasn’t conducive to mediation then, and it certainly isn’t now. 

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

3 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Any extension of the CSO will depend upon circumstances at the time. I do not predict that one will take place simply “because”. That is a scare tactic used on a regular basis and lacks context. If conditions deteriorate here because of continued vaccine hesitancy and new variants, I would expect a continuation of vaccine requirements and protocols on a voluntary basis by the cruise lines. I see any sort of further no sail order to only be issued under extraordinary circumstances. 
 

Mediation was tried twice.  The second time was when the judge ordered the parties back to mediation to negotiate a replacement CSO while his injunction was stayed.  That obviously didn’t work either.  I don’t anticipate that the appellate court would further engage with that type of resolution. The issue wasn’t conducive to mediation then, and it certainly isn’t now. 

This has to play out for sure.  CDC wants full control up to and including a complete shutdown if they deem necessary. The Governor feels just as strongly they should not have that kind of authority. I have no idea what will happen.  Stay tuned.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not an issue for us regardless of the outcome.

 

Would we consider taking our grandchildren on a cruise where vaccinations are not a condition of passage?  Never.

 

Why on earth would we expose them to this risk?  Nor would their parents allow it.

 

 

 

Edited by iancal
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody heard boo from the two judges who stayed the injunction?  They said opinions to follow.  If they had a literally last minute opinion last Saturday night, they should have been able to articulate their decision in a day or two.  It is looking like a decision in search of a rationale.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

Has anybody heard boo from the two judges who stayed the injunction?  They said opinions to follow.  If they had a literally last minute opinion last Saturday night, they should have been able to articulate their decision in a day or two.  It is looking like a decision in search of a rationale.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Has anybody heard boo from the two judges who stayed the injunction?  They said opinions to follow.  If they had a literally last minute opinion last Saturday night, they should have been able to articulate their decision in a day or two.  It is looking like a decision in search of a rationale.

We also have not heard from the judge who dissented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florida AG has just petitioned the Supreme Ct., on an emergency basis, to block CDC's protocols on cruise ships.  Hmm....  And if that should be granted, does our governor not envision the possibility that ships could sail from other ports that might be convenient to U.S. customers?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2021 at 11:47 AM, KirkNC said:

Well I am not an attorney (though some of you appear to be) but I think celebrating by either side is premature until the fat lady sings.

Ladies and Gentlemen Rosie O'Donnell!

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
      • Forum Assistance
      • Holiday Exchange - Jingle and Mingle 2021
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Free Charter Air & Hotels on Antarctica Cruises
      • ICYMI Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Q&A with Silversea Cruises
      • 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...