I have had a chance to review the complaint. For those who are interested, I tried to provide a succinct summary of the facts and legal theories below. For those who are not, please ignore this post. I know there is some aversion to legal stuff on these boards, even though this is extremely relevant to cruising and
DCL, and relates to cruising reopening, the subject of this thread. If it isn't your cup of tea, you have been warned.
I would love it if someone who has more experience in government litigation could give an opinion. While I have extensive litigation experience, it isn't in this area of law.
The alleged facts from the state:
The state argues that in October 2020, the CDC said that cruising should resume sailing with the right precautions, because the benefit of opening outweighed the costs, but then it effectively just extended the cruising ban through its actions. The state outlines the history of the Conditional Sailing Order, and how it was made at a time when vaccines were unavailable and conditions were different. It quotes the CDC Director's congressional testimony on March 18, 2021, where he said he could not give a timeline for phase two of the order to proceed, arguing that, at the rate the CDC is moving, it will be at least November before cruising resumes. It then attacks the April 2 guidance as only being partially complete, not accounting for fully vaccinated ships, and treating the cruise industry differently than other travel industries.
Damages
For damages, it says the Florida ports will lose $420 million by July, and in 2019, Florida received $102.8 million in tax revenue from embarkations. 6,464 cruise industry employees have filed for unemployment. Cruise lines will move abroad if the order isn't lifted.
The legal theories are a bit different than I had guessed above:
1) The CDC exceeded its authority to lock down an entire industry for 1.5 years.
- The applicable regulation doesn't give the CDC the authority to suspend operation of cruise ships, much less every cruise ship in the country.
- The CDC can only act if it first determines a state's actions are insufficient to prevent the state-to-state, and foreign to U.S., spread of disease.
- The CDC's interpretation of the regulation for preventing spread is overlay broad, because the regulations lists illustrative examples of the types of things the CDC may do, and this action isn't of a similar nature.
2) Even if the CDC has the authority, its actions are arbitrary and capricious, and violate the Administrative Procedures Act (a federal law with specific technical requirements for the generation of regulations by federal agencies).
- The CDC didn't account for vaccines when it issued it's year-long order through November 2021, and it hasn't properly considered developments since.
- The CDC is ignoring successful foreign cruises or other lessons on how businesses can operate safely.
- The CDC hasn't addressed measures taken by ships (and states) and explained how they are inadequate, which is a prerequisite to its action.
- The CDC hasn't explained different treatment for cruising vs other industries - caselaw says the CDC must provide a reasoned explanation for treating similar situations differently.
- The CDC has failed to actually provide the four-phase framework to return passengers to cruising as required by its order.
- The APA required the CDC to provide notice and receive comments, which it didn't. The CDC is improperly using the "good cause" exception to avoid that step, especially this long after the pandemic started.
3) Violation of the U.S. Constitution's legislative power
- The Conditional Sailing Order constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of lawmaking by the executive branch - giving the CDC power to determine the rights of millions of citizens and the survival of countless businesses.
What the Sate Wants
The state wants the court to hold the Conditional Sailing Order unlawful, and a preliminary and permanent injunction, preventing the CDC from enforcing it, allowing the cruising industry to open with reasonable protocols.
My 2-Cent Opinion
On its face, the complaint is well written and lays out colorable legal claims. However, I would like to have the benefit of the answer, since I only have a rudimentary understanding of the case law in this area. In any case, I still think Florida has an uphill battle, because the nature of the pandemic will make a court sympathetic to giving the CDC broad authority, and courts (even conservative ones) naturally favor government actors anyway. Getting a preliminary injunction is almost certain not to happen. On the other hand, I do think the case may have more legs than I originally thought, and the conservative Supreme Court would almost certainly favor Florida should the case proceed that far.