Jump to content

Florida goes to the Supreme Court


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, time4u2go said:

I didn't say it was simple.  I was just pointing it out as an alternative to Florida for southern Caribbean cruises, which it has been for many years.

touche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there’s a reason none of the cruise lines joined in DeSantis’ suit.

 

there’s a reason Norwegian sued over DeSantis’ “don’t ask” policies.

 

there’s a reason Royal Caribbean said they’re still going to follow CDC guidelines.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, songbird1329 said:

You know, there’s a reason none of the cruise lines joined in DeSantis’ suit.

 

there’s a reason Norwegian sued over DeSantis’ “don’t ask” policies.

 

there’s a reason Royal Caribbean said they’re still going to follow CDC guidelines.

 

 

Isn't the NCL litigation (1) against the Surgeon General and Head of the Department of Health of the State of Florida (i.e., not the DeSantis' suit) and (2) about (arguing “the Florida’s prohibition [on requiring vaccine documentation] violates federal law for multiple reasons, including because it conflicts with and is preempted by federal regulation on this point) i.e., "not being allowed to require proof" (as per the Law in Florida) versus "don't ask" (policies)?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may never know the reasons the cruise lines chose not to join Florida's initial lawsuit, but we do know that at one point they were very vocal against the CDC -- as the FL appeal before the Supreme Court states:

 

"The cruise industry immediately condemned the April instructions as “unduly burdensome, largely unworkable, and . . . reflect[ing] a zero-risk objective rather than the mitigation approach” taken with the rest of society. Dkt. 25-9, at 2. Some cruise lines began moving sailings overseas, stating that they were “fed up with waiting for the CDC to allow [them] to cruise.” Dkt. 25-29, at 4"

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A5/184803/20210723134720313_Application.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Okay, those of you legal types who have been following all the suits and appeals... how do you interpret this https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cdc-says-mask-rules-will-apply-florida-cruise-ships-not-following-sail-order-2021-07-24/ ? since virtually all the cruise lines sailing out of the US appear to be following the <95% vaccinated or the more restrictive protocols of the simulated cruises (with more  than 95% unvaccinated)... it doesn't appear anyone will be impacted by this... 

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

38 minutes ago, kearney said:

Okay, those of you legal types who have been following all the suits and appeals... how do you interpret this https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cdc-says-mask-rules-will-apply-florida-cruise-ships-not-following-sail-order-2021-07-24/ ? since virtually all the cruise lines sailing out of the US appear to be following the <95% vaccinated or the more restrictive protocols of the simulated cruises (with more  than 95% unvaccinated)... it doesn't appear anyone will be impacted by this... 

I interpreted it as the CDC warning cruise lines that if they step out of line, then the CDC can still make their lives miserable.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, kearney said:

Okay, those of you legal types who have been following all the suits and appeals... how do you interpret this https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cdc-says-mask-rules-will-apply-florida-cruise-ships-not-following-sail-order-2021-07-24/ ? since virtually all the cruise lines sailing out of the US appear to be following the <95% vaccinated or the more restrictive protocols of the simulated cruises (with more  than 95% unvaccinated)... it doesn't appear anyone will be impacted by this... 

 

I interpret it as the CDC still working tirelessly to keep the cruise industry miserable.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, At Sea At Peace said:

 

I interpret it as the CDC still working tirelessly to keep the cruise industry miserable.

Not to mention the people who patronize the cruise industry.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, At Sea At Peace said:

 

I interpret it as the CDC still working tirelessly to keep the cruise industry miserable.

Kinda proves Florida's point doesn't it.....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, songbird1329 said:

You know, there’s a reason none of the cruise lines joined in DeSantis’ suit.

 

there’s a reason Norwegian sued over DeSantis’ “don’t ask” policies.

 

there’s a reason Royal Caribbean said they’re still going to follow CDC guidelines.

 

 

 

 

 

The reason is to not piss off the CDC. While the court cases are pending they need the CDC's approval to sail. Why would they get involved?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, time4u2go said:

Last time I checked, there's flights there.  I didn't know driving was a requirement.

 

Driving is a requirement when you live in Florida. That is one of the reasons we retired in Florida.......to cruise from Florida.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kearney said:

Kinda proves Florida's point doesn't it.....

Agree or disagree, it's interesting that DeSantis issued the proclamation for companies to not require vaccinations and almost in the same breath, petitioned for cruises to resume ASAP.  The 2 are completely at odds with each other in today's environment.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kearney said:

Okay, those of you legal types who have been following all the suits and appeals... how do you interpret this https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cdc-says-mask-rules-will-apply-florida-cruise-ships-not-following-sail-order-2021-07-24/ ? since virtually all the cruise lines sailing out of the US appear to be following the <95% vaccinated or the more restrictive protocols of the simulated cruises (with more  than 95% unvaccinated)... it doesn't appear anyone will be impacted by this... 

It just means the cdc is double dipping the cruise lines. On one hand the cdc treats the industry like it does jails and nursing homes. On the other it's treated like planes and buses.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, At Sea At Peace said:

 

I interpret it as the CDC still working tirelessly to keep the cruise industry miserable.

My interpretation is the CDC is working to keep passengers and crew as safe as possible in an environment which can also provide an enjoyable cruise experience. Meaning.......95% or greater vaccinated and no protocols will be in place for masking or social distancing. Now THAT is my kind of cruise!

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kearney said:

It is just not that simple... if it was NCL would have done so... as it is their earliest San Juan sailing in December... the CEO has been complaining since early April. I suspect provisioning a ship out of San Juan can be done if there are just a few ships...but if you move much of your fleet or multiple fleets... providing all that is needed could be challenging.. and terminals would have to be improved as well. There is a cascade of issues... additional flights, hotel rooms, etc. San Juan would probably love the additional tourists. But many will not cruise if it means flying. I wonder what percent of cruisers who sail out of Florida...live in Florida?

 

NCL relies on Florida the least of the big 3. And the only one that might not be bluffing on the move from Florida. It'd take a hit but no where near carnival or royal. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kearney said:

Okay, those of you legal types who have been following all the suits and appeals... how do you interpret this https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cdc-says-mask-rules-will-apply-florida-cruise-ships-not-following-sail-order-2021-07-24/ ? since virtually all the cruise lines sailing out of the US appear to be following the <95% vaccinated or the more restrictive protocols of the simulated cruises (with more  than 95% unvaccinated)... it doesn't appear anyone will be impacted by this... 

 

It's simple. Follow the Conditional Sail Order voluntarily and things proceed as they have been proceeding; or choose not to follow the Conditional Sail Order and we will instead enforce the transport mask policy onboard for everyone.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I filed my motion to file an amicus brief with the Appeals Court dated Juky 16) but due to some issues with electronically filing it, (which was finally granted on Monday I did not get it filed until Monday July 19.) I was really disappointed the Appeals Court had not waited the allowed period for the Amicus Briefs to be filed to originally rule.  That is seven days after the party supported filed. Sinc mine supported Florida, it should have been the 19th.  

I later on Friday heard about the reversal (diect e-notice from appeals court) before I heard about the filing with the SCOTUS so it had me baffled for about an hour or so. Had my amicus brief really had that great an impact? Had they actually read it?  It almost made all I had been put through worth it.   But then I found out about the SCOTUS filing. (I even have a copy of it)  That along with the latest Moritorium ruling in another appeals court was more likely the motovator. Yet maybe my arguments, which I still think were valid, may have helped tip the scales. 

Also, as to the CDC trying to use their mask mandate to extort the cruise lines to follow their conditional sail order, they must be very careful for they were relying on the same part of 42 USC 264(a) to empower them on the mask mandate. Judge's ruling was they exceeded their power in not following the limitations in the next sentence in trying to impose "other measures" like the Conditional Sail order and not limiting those "other measures" related to the ones itemized in the statute, like deratting, inspections and sanitation measures.  I don't seem to recall requiring masks to be on that list. 

It is very possible that if that threat is real as reported by Reuters, and they have now brought this to bear in this case, the Judge might just rule that the CDC is in Contempt of his ruling and sanction them. That sort of action is really showing contempt, both for the District Court and the Appeals Court who now have sided with him.  Just my two cents from someone intimately familar with the case.  

Note there is nothing beign said about a virus in this post.   Might be in the State of Florida's SCOTUS filing that is attached, but I am not responsible for that content.  

   

21A5.pdf

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Cruise industry spurns federal over site and self regulates, will they resume dumping in the ocean. Will they go back to burning the Heavy fuels. Ignoring just these 2 regulations would save them millions.

 

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

I interpret it as the cruise lines voluntarily following CDC guidelines because the last thing their risk managers want is an outbreak on one of their ships followed by a lawsuit alleging negligence for failing to follow CDC guidelines.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The far more important part of the CDC's response to the Circuit Court's reversal is not about the mask mandate for public transportation.  It is:

 

"CDC also said cruise ships not following its order must abide by other requirements including "reporting of individual cases of illness or death and ship inspections and sanitary measures to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases."

 

This means that the CDC will fall back on the specific language of the Public Health Act, as required by Judge Merryday's ruling.  This allows the CDC to inspect and conduct health interviews with passengers and crew, every single cruise, and to detain the ship and passengers until the inspections and interviews are completed, as is specifically mandated by the PHA.  So, they are saying that if a cruise ship adheres to Judge Merryday's ruling that the CSO requirements are only voluntary, and are not being followed, then they will do what Judge Merryday wants, and apply the exact language of the PHA.  Turn around day will be chaos, and likely "turn around days".

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The far more important part of the CDC's response to the Circuit Court's reversal is not about the mask mandate for public transportation.  It is:

 

"CDC also said cruise ships not following its order must abide by other requirements including "reporting of individual cases of illness or death and ship inspections and sanitary measures to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases."

 

This means that the CDC will fall back on the specific language of the Public Health Act, as required by Judge Merryday's ruling.  This allows the CDC to inspect and conduct health interviews with passengers and crew, every single cruise, and to detain the ship and passengers until the inspections and interviews are completed, as is specifically mandated by the PHA.  So, they are saying that if a cruise ship adheres to Judge Merryday's ruling that the CSO requirements are only voluntary, and are not being followed, then they will do what Judge Merryday wants, and apply the exact language of the PHA.  Turn around day will be chaos, and likely "turn around days".

 

Not sure the CDC has the manpower or budget to do what you describe. If they do, then all I can say is our "tax dollars at work" and how they are wasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TXRANCHER said:

I filed my motion to file an amicus brief with the Appeals Court dated Juky 16) but due to some issues with electronically filing it, (which was finally granted on Monday I did not get it filed until Monday July 19.) I was really disappointed the Appeals Court had not waited the allowed period for the Amicus Briefs to be filed to originally rule.  That is seven days after the party supported filed. Sinc mine supported Florida, it should have been the 19th.  

I later on Friday heard about the reversal (diect e-notice from appeals court) before I heard about the filing with the SCOTUS so it had me baffled for about an hour or so. Had my amicus brief really had that great an impact? Had they actually read it?  It almost made all I had been put through worth it.   But then I found out about the SCOTUS filing. (I even have a copy of it)  That along with the latest Moritorium ruling in another appeals court was more likely the motovator. Yet maybe my arguments, which I still think were valid, may have helped tip the scales. 

Also, as to the CDC trying to use their mask mandate to extort the cruise lines to follow their conditional sail order, they must be very careful for they were relying on the same part of 42 USC 264(a) to empower them on the mask mandate. Judge's ruling was they exceeded their power in not following the limitations in the next sentence in trying to impose "other measures" like the Conditional Sail order and not limiting those "other measures" related to the ones itemized in the statute, like deratting, inspections and sanitation measures.  I don't seem to recall requiring masks to be on that list. 

It is very possible that if that threat is real as reported by Reuters, and they have now brought this to bear in this case, the Judge might just rule that the CDC is in Contempt of his ruling and sanction them. That sort of action is really showing contempt, both for the District Court and the Appeals Court who now have sided with him.  Just my two cents from someone intimately familar with the case.  

Note there is nothing beign said about a virus in this post.   Might be in the State of Florida's SCOTUS filing that is attached, but I am not responsible for that content.  

   

21A5.pdf 429.98 kB · 5 downloads

 

Thanks for your detailed account on this case.  I hope your amicus brief did tip the scales. I'm sure you feel your work was well worth it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, coffeebean said:

My interpretation is the CDC is working to keep passengers and crew as safe as possible in an environment which can also provide an enjoyable cruise experience. Meaning.......95% or greater vaccinated and no protocols will be in place for masking or social distancing. Now THAT is my kind of cruise!

 

MSC and other lines actual data have documented otherwise in countries with no where near the vaccine availability and levels in the states.

 

The CDC isn't working to keep passengers and crew as safe as possible, nor is the CDC even remotely concerned to do so in an environment which can also provide an enjoyable cruise experience.  Their filings indicate that they are protecting against a cruise ship based outbreak that will cripple US based health care ports.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

during the court case I contacted the AG's attorneys for Florida and Texas and stated I could not support their position on proof of vaccination.  My position is that the CDC should be following the IHR.  If they were following the IHR it allows them (the Competent Health Authority at the Port, could be state. could be federal based on your form of federalism) to ask for health history and that can include vaccination records.  Remember it has always been a requirement in some countries to have to show proof of vaccination against Yellow Fever.  I have one on my yellow International Certificate of Vaccination in 1997 so I could go to West Africa. I also have ten other immunizations received that were not required for entrance on my card. If the CDC were just to follow the IHR they could authorize the Cruise Lines to collect that information on their behalf and it would overrule the state law.  Even the Judge during the oral arguments in Tampa made that observation.  Yet the CDC's attorney admitted in open court they did not require it. They only required the Cruise lines to be able to prove to them that they met certain percentages of vaccinated crew and passengers to avoid the cost and delay of making test cruises.  So the CDC is the culprit in all this.    

  

Edited by TXRANCHER
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kearney said:

Hard to drive to...

I have to fly to Florida so Puerto Rico is just a longer flight.  In the past the flight to PR was less expensive than a flight to Florida. I would choose PR over Florida every time for better itineraries and a nicer place to start your vacation.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
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
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: PONANT Cruises & Expeditions
      • Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Q&A with American Queen Voyages
      • 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...