NCL -v- FL Preliminary Injunction Live Video Friday 8/6 @ 10AM Access

[Ivy86]

Thank you for the updates .. very interesting 

[jrapps]

FL lawyer is saying the whole reason the law exists is because they are afraid businesses will require a vaccine passport, and the judge asked what the result would be, what is the harm done but he didn't really answer the question. 

[Karaboudjan]

I joined late.  Who is John O'Sullivan?

[jrapps]

Just now, Karaboudjan said:

I joined late.  Who is John O'Sullivan?

Lawyer for NCL but he hasn't spoken, Derek Shaffer is the lawyer who presented.

[jrapps]

I wonder if we will hear a ruling today. My guess is the judge will deliberate for a while before ruling

[Turtles06]

5 minutes ago, jrapps said:

FL lawyer is saying the whole reason the law exists is because they are afraid businesses will require a vaccine passport, and the judge asked what the result would be, what is the harm done but he didn't really answer the question. 

I don’t think his non-answer was lost on the judge. She was also totally unimpressed by the notion, raised by Patterson, that unvaxxed people have a constitutional right to cruise. 

[JC5240]

I'm hoping that we do - however, if they do get a ruling - I'm assuming FLs lawyer will file an amendment to the decision and bring it to the supreme court? I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have any idea what the next steps would be after that. If this judge rules in NCL's favor (today, let's say) - does that mean if they were to cruise in Florida tomorrow, their requirement of 100% vaxxed will be fulfilled?

 

 

4 minutes ago, jrapps said:

I wonder if we will hear a ruling today. My guess is the judge will deliberate for a while before ruling

 

[jrapps]

1 minute ago, JC5240 said:

I'm hoping that we do - however, if they do get a ruling - I'm assuming FLs lawyer will file an amendment to the decision and bring it to the supreme court? I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have any idea what the next steps would be after that. If this judge rules in NCL's favor (today, let's say) - does that mean if they were to cruise in Florida tomorrow, their requirement of 100% vaxxed will be fulfilled?

 

 

 

Regardless of who wins, we will see an appeal. There is at least one more level before the supreme court. This will go on for a while.

[At Sea At Peace]

Been out all morning.  Thanks for the live updates from all.  

 

I believe that, prior to the Delta variant, NCL had little chance to prevail in the temporary injunction or the the transfer to the Middle District.

 

The current issues on cruise ships for vaccinations and masks policies is playing out around the country.

 

It looks like a toss-up, with the loser likely appealing.

 

And around and around we go.

[jrapps]

Judge is now asking why vaccines can not be considered a "screening protocol" since the FL law carves out that those are legal, but does not define them. She compared it to her own court where people must submit to a temperature check and that is "recorded" as record.

[jrapps]

Lawyer for FL seems very unprepared today. Judge is asking if the FL legislature considered if international travel & commerce is an exception to the law. For the multiple time today, the lawyer has answered he does not know why the legislature made the choices it made.

[Karaboudjan]

Very interesting that the legislature discussed the effect of the law on cruise lines.

 

 

[jrapps]

This seems to be wrapping up....if I were a betting man, I expect to see an injunction in our near future. (but I'm not a lawyer so we'll just have to wait and see)

 

Thank you again to @At Sea At Peace for providing the link to this...was very educational to watch it in real time.

Edited August 6, 2021 by jrapps

[Turtles06]

Just now, jrapps said:

Thank you again to @At Sea At Peace for providing the link to this...was very educational to watch it in real time.

I agree. Huge thanks to @At Sea At Peace for the link!

[jrapps]

Judge said she hopes to get back with a ruling "very soon"...so now it's a waiting game.

[zerooveride]

You could tell the attorney for the State of Florida was not happy with the way the hearing was going. His facial expression were very telling. I honestly believe he knew that he had not standing but had to go through the motions for his client. He seemed very unprepared for Judge Williams' questions.

 

[jrapps]

I found it fascinating how they picked apart the exact wording of the law, and had the FL lawyer admit that if any business were to require a verbal attestation that they were vaccinated, they could legally be denied service, and that the law was very limited to "documentation". The judge didn't seem to buy that one form (verbal vs written) was less or more discriminatory than the other, undercutting the claim that the law exists to prevent discrimination.

 

 

[aubreyc1988]

drat I missed it! 

[jrapps]

The other thing that stuck in my head the most was when the Judge asked if employers could legally require employees to be vaccinated as the law specifically mentioned "patrons and customers". As of right now it is legal for an employer to require documentation that an employee is vaccinated, but not a customer.

 

Also, when the judge asked FL's lawyer if the cruise lines could offer different levels of services after the cruise left port, FL's lawyer indicated that that is outside their jurisdiction, however NCL's lawyer called him out on that saying there is nothing preventing different levels of services onboard in FL waters before the ship is in international waters, so the argument that they have jurisdiction on boarding, but ONLY on boarding is flawed.

[jrapps]

The judge also sort of admonished FLs lawyer every time he kept mentioning "Vaccine Passports" reminding him that no such thing exists and that was a political distinction in the press, and had no legal bearing on the case. FL's lawyer kept trying to call them passports instead of "documented proof of vaccination"

[Karaboudjan]

Any thoughts on how the commerce arguments went?  I missed some of that and there were also too many references to other cases that didn't mean anything to me.  

[jrapps]

Just now, Karaboudjan said:

Any thoughts on how the commerce arguments went?  I missed some of that and there were also too many references to other cases that didn't mean anything to me.  

A lot of the commerce clause discussion went over my head. 

[Navis]

2 hours ago, JC5240 said:

I'm hoping that we do - however, if they do get a ruling - I'm assuming FLs lawyer will file an amendment to the decision and bring it to the supreme court? I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have any idea what the next steps would be after that. If this judge rules in NCL's favor (today, let's say) - does that mean if they were to cruise in Florida tomorrow, their requirement of 100% vaxxed will be fulfilled?

 

 

 

This case will follow basically the same path as the FL suit against the CDC has to date. Meaning, whatever party loses this injunction will want to appeal. If the District Court Judge does not stay her own order pending appeal, the losing party will immediately appeal to the Circuit Court. That court would then hear the limited matter of the stay pending appeal. After that is decided, the appeal on the injunction merits itself can be heard by the Circuit Court. This all what is playing out in the FL/CDC case, FL was granted injunction … CDC requested stay … judge denied stay … CDC appeal … circuit court sustained the denial of stay and has set a calendar to hear the grant of the injunction on the merits.
 

After the Circuit Court’s involvements, it is possible that the losing party (either of the request to stay or the judgement on the underlying injunction) could, theoretically, appeal to SCOTUS. That said, the high court rarely injects itself on such pedestrian day-to-day Federal Court matters(motions/injunctions/stays). They would be more likely to decline and wait for the underlying substance of the case to be decided below and then decide whether to grant cert on the merits of the case.

 

In short, in the Federal system … the game is akin to chess … move fast at first while the board is open and easy (injunctions/motions/stays pending appeal), but once you get to the meat of the game (substance of the case) things grind to a slow walk. 

[Navis]

Apologies … I left out one important additional path immediately prior to appealing to SCOTUS. The party losing at the Circuit Court panel level could also seek an appeal en banc, which would allow all the siting Circuit Court judges to collectively weigh in (rather than just the 3 that heard the initial appeal).

[JC5240]

@Navis thank you! Very good information.

 

and LOL at myself for saying amendment rather than appeal...smh.