Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry, posted to wrong thread 😀
  2. Ahh, gotcha. I was not aware that Crystal was operating out of Barbados this summer as well! I just found out that Crystal is also operating this month and next out of Boston doing round trips to Bermuda … had we known they were sailing out of here earlier we might have booked before we made land-based summer plans! The 10 min walk to the terminal would have been perfect! Have a great cruise!
  3. Any chance you rebooked to the Seabourn Odyssey? I know we’ve chatted in the past about our upcoming Seabourn journey that (I think) we both had to cancel last year.
  4. This reminds me of the first time I went home to visit my family after passing the bar and sitting through my first 3 months as an appeals court clerk. My aunts and uncles wanted to know how much of my day to day is like Law & Order. I responded, “none of it.” They then asked what about the show was legally inaccurate. I responded, “well, basically everything from the moment they walk in to the courtroom to the moment they walk out, but the rest is at least entertaining.” Lol
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. I agree. As with most commercial products, in general the market will dictate. The other variable here however are all the various port agreements the cruise lines have entered into … what do they require? What representations and covenants have the cruise lines needed to make to allow embarkation/disembarkation or itinerary stops? Have they made any promises about their vaccination practices? I think this must have a pretty material impact on practices as well .. the cruise we are on is not subject to the CSO at all as it embarks/disembarks outside the US and does not visit any US port. Yet our cruise line is starting up with practices that exceed the CSO standards. Now, as you point out, that could be for their own business purposes, but it could also be because those were the terms demanded by the countries on the itinerary for entry. We are already seeing the effects of some other variables play out in the Caribbean … ports are being dropped, sea days added as countries close their borders or add requirements for entry for which the cruise lines are not equipped to comply. I’ve just accepted that for our cruise I’m going to have to check regularly from now until next winter and adjust as needed. I think vigilance and flexibility are going to be the name of the game for the next few years. Thankfully, our cruise line has a dedicated page for their cruises embarking from our location and they update it regularly so I feel like I know where to go to get the information we need. As cruise lines begin to open up I hope they improve their communication practices … consistent and timely communication is going to be key.
  8. Haha, I wish I was on a ship somewhere right now! Not until 2022 for me, sadly. Other than my clerk experience, I really don’t have much relevant experience on this one. My practice is focused on multinational corporate M&A now. When I was clerking, we did hear a few en banc appeals of purported violations of the APA, but never one brought for exceeding delegated authority under the PHSA. That said, I have always thought the eviction moratorium might have been pushing the extreme limit of agency delegated power and I think the arguments made against such authority are quite strong (so I was not surprised to see the recent remand). As to the alternatively pled constitutional claims, I would not give them much weight at all. They were likely added primarily for forum shopping purposes so that those states would not be forced to file their claim in the DC Circuit, which has original jurisdiction on claims related solely to administrative matters. The southern states do not like DC Circuit and do everything they can to avoid filing there. By adding a constitutional claim or two to their pleadings they can avoid (or survive) a motion to transfer venue and thus have the whole case initially heard in a venue they deem more amenable to their arguments.
  9. You nailed it 😀 I’m traveling on Seabourn.
  10. Perhaps, but in today’s day and age, who knows! FWIW, I did ask the mod to delete my initial post … no one really cares what an actual lawyer and former federal court clerk has to say … everyone is in their corner so best I just stay out of it. I just want us all to get back to those days when we argue about which bar makes the best martinis! 😂
  11. Damn autocorrect … obviously I meant SCOTUS. I should have caught that in post review. I did clerk for on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals for now Justice Breyer. He would have given me a tongue lashing for not proofreading my post.
  12. Not a surprising decision from a circuit court with one of the highest percentage of reversals/vacated/remand by SCOUTS. That said, I don’t really see this as anything SCOUTS would take up … nor would they had it been FL that was appealing. SCOUTS rarely bothers itself with procedural appeals and might only take this case on the semi-novel standing argument (which is interesting and has been percolating in the Appeals courts for years). If they do .. that opinion could surprise as this conservative court take a very narrow view of standing. That said, not sure what, if any, practical effect this has on NCL’s operations … they’ve already decided how they want to proceed (which was more than the CSO required anyway) and this decision changes nothing in that regard. Maybe the adopt the RCI/Carnival approach of going to 95% vaccination? I’m just happy I’m sailing on a cruise line (not NCL) outside the US that has already extended its 100% vaccination requirement to February 2022 so I don’t have to deal with any of this drama.
  13. Apologies for my confusion. Reading the website, I don’t expect anything fleet wide or simultaneously announced. The statement on the web to me is pretty clear … they will announce further vaccination requirements as they work out the arrangements with the individual ports. I’m thinking this will be piecemeal thing. I’m on the Odyssey in March visiting most of the same ports that are on the cruises starting next week so I am hopeful they will extend the requirement beyond Jan 2022 sometime this fall.
  14. I posted about this last week. It looks like they are taking it destination by destination. If you go to the “Booked Passengers” section on the website you can see for the Barbados cruises, the vaccination requirement has been extended through mid January 2022. With the note that further updates for subsequent cruises will come at a later date.
  15. I did read that as well in the exact same release about the extension of the vaccination requirement. But I’ll add that a portion of Seabourn’s answer to that question did catch my eye … they continue to say the shore excursion limitation still applies “during our initial return to cruising.” So perhaps there is some flexibility after the Oct cruises to see where things are at? I have noticed that the excursion offerings for our March 2022 cruise seem to be far more than what was offered when we were supposed to be on the same cruise in March 2020 (at least 4-5 more per stop … with the exception of St Bharts, of course). Wondering if they are expecting the excursion requirement to remain in place and just want to have enough options for all?
  • Create New...