Tracking Cruising Restart: News and Updates

[Cheburashka]

"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). However, the preliminary injunction is STAYED until 12:01 a.m. EDT on JULY 18, 2021, at which time the conditional sailing order and the measures promulgated under the conditional sailing
order will persist as only a non-binding “consideration,” “recommendation” or “guideline,” the same tools used by CDC when addressing the practices in other similarly situated industries, such as airlines, railroads, hotels, casinos, sports venues, buses, subways, and others."

Game changer! Cruising now has a much better chance of coming back soon.

 

[mcd2745]

I've said all along I did not think the CDC was acting in good faith. Perhaps that is also how the mediator reported back to the judge with regards to how CDC approached the mediation efforts. Could it be that the judge, by staying the injunction for a month, is hoping that this forces the CDC's hand to possibly go back to mediation and actually start negotiating in good faith?

Regardless, I'm sure the CDC has already filed some type of appeal.

 

[sullivan.kscott]

Given the groundbreaking nature of this decision on the cruise industry and significant impact this decision will have on cruising, I hope the mods will allow me to post this summary. I will keep this as brief as possible for a 124-page order, for fear that I could violate the new rules, and for not wanting to put too much time into a post that may be removed.

I won't get into the standing arguments, or other legal analysis, other than to say, the court very much agreed with Florida and comments from the cruise line association, that there wasn't actually a reasonable path for saving the summer cruise seasons, and that Florida and its citizens would suffer significant harm, giving Florida standing. The court did not seem to like that the CDC provided the phase 2 guidance on the same day its reply brief was due. The court goes into great history about the federal governments quarantine power and says:

"Never has CDC (or a predecessor) detained a vessel for more than fifteen months; never has CDC implemented a widespread or industry-wide detention of a fleet of vessels in American waters; never has CDC conditioned pratique as extensively and burdensomely as the conditional sailing order; and never has CDC imposed restrictions that have summarily dismissed the effectiveness of state regulation and halted for an extended time an entire multi-billion dollar industry nationwide. In a word, never has CDC implemented measures as extensive, disabling, and exclusive as those under review in this action."

The court finds the CDC exceeded its statuary authority with the COI and says:

"CDC cites no historical precedent in which the federal government detained a fleet of vessels for more than a year and imposed comprehensive and impossibly detailed “technical guidelines” before again permitting a vessel to sail. That is, CDC cites no historical precedent for, in effect, closing an entire industry."

So what is the ordered?

"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). However, the preliminary injunction is STAYED until 12:01 a.m. EDT on JULY 18, 2021, at which time the conditional sailing order and the measures promulgated under the conditional sailing
order will persist as only a non-binding “consideration,” “recommendation” or “guideline,” the same tools used by CDC when addressing the practices in other similarly situated industries, such as airlines, railroads, hotels, casinos, sports venues, buses, subways, and others."

(emphasis mine)

Then the court says the CDC can propose a narrower injunction based on scientific evidence (which it must back up, unlike its generic statement in the CSO) - essentially leaving the door open to giving the CDC the power to provide some regulation that doesn't look like the current requirements that essentially keep the industry closed.

This is a major win for cruise lines, because absent a change on appeal, they will have the ability to sail again very soon, with limited restrictions, and without doing the test sailings first. I don't see the court allowing for those types of hurdles, given its unabashed inclination to open the industry quickly and save the summer cruising season.

P.S. - please remember we are not allowed to discuss politics at all here. This is a summary of the court's reasoning and not an invitation for political debate.

Thanks for the useful summary!

 

[hrhdhd]

I've said all along I did not think the CDC was acting in good faith. Perhaps that is also how the mediator reported back to the judge with regards to how CDC approached the mediation efforts. Could it be that the judge, by staying the injunction for a month, is hoping that this forces the CDC's hand to possibly go back to mediation and actually start negotiating in good faith?

Regardless, I'm sure the CDC has already filed some type of appeal.

Maybe not . . . today was a federal holiday for many federal employees.

 

[WishUponAStarryNight]

Perhaps the CDC knew this was coming, which helps explain the change from level 4 to level 3 and the guidance for only unvaccinated cruisers.

 

[wideeyedwonder]

Apropos of vax requirements, CA has rolled out a digital vaccine record.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article252208388.html

https://myvaccinerecord.cdph.ca.gov/

I don’t want to get too far off topic, but the California system is basically an online version of your paper vaccine card, with an additional QR code to “verify authenticity”:

“California has launched a COVID-19 vaccine verification system that provides digital replicas of the traditional wallet-size paper cards, in an effort that officials say will make it easier for residents to supply proof of inoculation if needed.

…“This is really no different than someone’s vaccine card,” she told reporters. “It’s an optional tool for Californians to use to be a touch more convenient, and one of many ways people can show and verify that they’ve been vaccinated.””

https://www.latimes.com/california/...m-to-provide-digital-covid-19-vaccine-records

 

[AquaDame]

Hopefully, now that a decision has been made, we can have non-political informational posts about it without a violation of the new rules - but mods, check me if I am wrong.

I think the main decision made here - https://www.disboards.com/threads/policy-on-covid-related-discussions.3840344/ - was that politics is off limits. Court decisions ARE POLITICAL.

I get that this is a court decision that would affect cruising. What the cruiselines DO now would be very much on topic. This thread was allowed to morph and bend the rules until now we're not tracking cruising itself, but instead following court cases, which leads to bashing the CDC, comparing the way states are governing, still talking about vaccine passports, and... to be honest this should have been closed when the policy was posted. Even if your post is a beautiful summary as it often is, its still a summary of a court ruling - politics. I think it is time to retire this thread.