CDC's No-Sail Order Officially Extended Till Oct 31

[T & R]

Anyone who feels the CDC has no jurisdiction within a state or authority over a private company wholly within a state, should just Google "CDC Eviction Ban". There are a lot of property managers, property owners, apartment building owners, etc who may disagree with you.

 

[Intr3pid]

There are two ways this is incorrect. The first is that the venue has no way of showing that everyone within the stadium will not cross to or from state lines, that cannot be done without 50,000 babysitters, thus opening them up to CDC jurisdiction. It would not be difficult to show that people who visit Disney World cross state lines. The second is that the federal government (CDC in this case) has jurisdiction via the interstate commerce clause. Almost every company that has a bank account is subject to interstate commerce clause and thus subject to fed oversight. I have seen this before with bafoons trying to manufacture firearms without an ATF class 7 license and they claimed they didn't need one because they did not sell or transport their guns out of state, bank account got 'em.

The venue has no such responsibility. Your interstate borders are where the checks would take place. Someone entering WDW isn't entering from another state. They are already inside Florida when that happens.

If half of the venue was in one state and the other half in another, then, yes.

Banking is irrelevant because diseases cannot (yet) be communicated between states through bank accounts. Federal government may have jurisdiction - not CDC.

Finally, can you provide an example of CDC shutting down a business located wholly inside a state?

 

[belle032]

... but who wants to travel to Florida to get on a cruise ship with the out of control transmission in the state?

Not me. Besides, I suspect the CAN-US border will remain closed for some time so it is unlikely we would even be able to go to Florida any time soon.

But you don't speak for everyone. There are many people who would very much like to. People are traveling to Florida for WDW and beaches and other vacations. Adults can decide for themselves where they are willing to travel.

 

[pumpkinqueen93]

You should read what you are quoting.

'Between states' is NOT the same thing as inside or within a state.

A stadium operates wholly inside a state. A theme park operates wholly inside a state. CDC has no authority over any of it. Its a state matter.

Yes but there are people who travel between states to go to a theme park, or to a stadium. What should have been done is that these stadiums and theme parks only sell tickets to people in their respective state.

 

[T & R]

Finally, can you provide an example of CDC shutting down a business located wholly inside a state?

No I cannot which brings me to the point of cruising being unfairly singled out. The CDC has the authority to regulate private businesses wholly within a U.S. state. Regulation can include anything up to and including shut down. If you still do not believe me then talk to property management companies in Florida who are trying to evict non-paying tenants or see my post before this one. As far as banking not being relevant, we are all aware you cannot catch a virus through a bank account, it becomes relevant because if your company operates a bank account then you are operating under interstate commerce, thus subjecting you to fed oversight (in this case the CDC). There are many many more examples of how the CDC can get into a business wholly within a U.S. state, such as alcohol transport/sales (which both occur at stadiums and themeparks) and other areas of fed oversight. You clearly have your mind made up that the CDC for some reason can only regulate cruise ships or ports of entry, so I will not bore you with additional proven examples of how the CDC can and does regulate businesses wholly within a state that are not cruise or airline related.

 

[Snowwhyt]

https://www.caribjournal.com/2020/10/01/st-kitts-nevis-tourism-oct-open/Now we have a place to go also!

 

[T & R]

Now we have a place to go also!

Yeah buddy! Marriot Royal Beach casino here we come.

 

[Intr3pid]

Anyone who feels the CDC has no jurisdiction within a state or authority over a private company wholly within a state, should just Google "CDC Eviction Ban". There are a lot of property managers, property owners, apartment building owners, etc who may disagree with you.

There are big question marks over whether this will survive a legal challenge:

https://cei.org/blog/cdcs-eviction-moratorium-unlawful-unconstitutional
https://www.financialservicesperspe...ratorium-but-will-it-survive-legal-challenge/
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/l...ional-national-eviction-moratorium-2020-09-23

No I cannot which brings me to the point of cruising being unfairly singled out. The CDC has the authority to regulate private businesses wholly within a U.S. state. Regulation can include anything up to and including shut down. If you still do not believe me then talk to property management companies in Florida who are trying to evict non-paying tenants or see my post before this one. As far as banking not being relevant, we are all aware you cannot catch a virus through a bank account, it becomes relevant because if your company operates a bank account then you are operating under interstate commerce, thus subjecting you to fed oversight (in this case the CDC). There are many many more examples of how the CDC can get into a business wholly within a U.S. state, such as alcohol transport/sales (which both occur at stadiums and themeparks) and other areas of fed oversight. You clearly have your mind made up that the CDC for some reason can only regulate cruise ships or ports of entry, so I will not bore you with additional proven examples of how the CDC can and does regulate businesses wholly within a state that are not cruise or airline related.

None of your examples are about operations inside a state. Alcohol sales, for example, will be CDC-regulated if they are happening between states. Once alcohol reaches a business inside a state, it already has CDC's blessing.

Interstate banking isn't CDC's mandate. That belongs to the feds.

CDC controls transmission of disease between states. If a business is physically inside a state, it's up to CDC to prove that its operations are resulting in transmission of a disease between state borders. And if they are, the controls will be placed at the points of entry - and not with the business.

There is absolutely no real history of CDC being able to regulate a business inside a state. Maybe some special cases aside. Like I said, feel free to prove me wrong with examples.

 

[Intr3pid]

Yes but there are people who travel between states to go to a theme park, or to a stadium. What should have been done is that these stadiums and theme parks only sell tickets to people in their respective state.

Ticket sales don't result in transmission of disease, neither do cruise bookings. Physical entry of the infected in a state or country does. If CDC can prove this is the case or that the states aren't doing enough, they can put up state border controls.

 

[Joe Brig]

Treatment protocols have improved, testing is widely available, and the death rates have dropped considerably. We also know who is at high risk. Yet some people still think that being outside without a mask is very dangerous. WDW and DCL should be open 100% without masks, but with temperature checks, and let people decide for themselves.

 

[cvjw]

... but who wants to travel to Florida to get on a cruise ship with the out of control transmission in the state?

Not me.

ME!!! We have already spent a week at Disney in August and a week and a half at Disney in September. Felt perfectly safe. None of us caught the virus in Florida. We would happily get on a Disney cruise ship if they start sailing!

 

[pumpkinqueen93]

Ticket sales don't result in transmission of disease, neither do cruise bookings. Physical entry of the infected in a state or country does. If CDC can prove this is the case or that the states aren't doing enough, they can put up state border controls.

Let's say for example if WDW was open to FL residents only it would give people from other states less of a reason to travel to FL from another state. If CDC and states probably could have done more to ensure that travel between states were strictly for business, then perhaps cases would have been a bit less

 

[tvguy]

Enough is enough already. The CDC needs to work with the industry and not against it. The cruise lines are doing their best to offer up a compromise.

I read through a random selection of about 40 comments. They were overwhelmingly positive that the industry should restart in some form. I do get there are 13,000 replies and probably one part time person assigned to review them all and sort them. However, the CDC doesn't have to take every piece of something that someone writes in response. Some of them are one line crazies and some of them are very thought out responses.

Until there are ports willing to take cruise ships, what the CDC says and does doesn't matter. A compromise on what? No ports. No cruises. CDC isn't even a player.

 

[atricks]

A few ports start to open up Oct 31st (St. Kitts for one). Carnival just announced they are cancelling all November and December cruises except for those from Miami and Port Canaveral. (see https://miami.cbslocal.com/2020/10/...-cancels-cruises-except-miami-port-canaveral/). Royal Caribbean is likely going to do something similar.

They may change itentiaries up to heavily favor the private islands (at least initially) and not run all the ships. But it appears there is an honest effort to attempt to get at least some of it going November 1st. Disney may be attempting something similar, at least trying to ramp up to the possibility for late November or December.

 

[T & R]

None of your examples are about operations inside a state. Alcohol sales, for example, will be CDC-regulated if they are happening between states. Once alcohol reaches a business inside a state, it already has CDC's blessing.

Unfortunately even when wholly within a state they continue to be regulated by fed (which can be CDC if they so chose) under consumer protection clauses and even advertising is regulated. There are many many ways the CDC can continue to bogart into your company.

Interstate banking isn't CDC's mandate. That belongs to the feds.

Last time I checked, CDC is fed

If a business is physically inside a state, it's up to CDC to prove that its operations are resulting in transmission of a disease between state borders.

Unfortunately this is not a criminal case, so the burden of proof is on the business not on the government. If it were a criminal case, you would be correct and the burden of proof would be on the state but just isn't so in a non-criminal case. This is what the cruise lines have been screaming about, the feds make them prove they're safe instead of the feds having to prove they are not.

There is absolutely no real history of CDC being able to regulate a business inside a state. Maybe some special cases aside. Like I said, feel free to prove me wrong with examples.

I've given you examples, violate the CDC eviction ban and just tell the non-paying tenants that according to you the CDC has no jurisdiction within a state. I do not think that's going to fly but worth a try. By the way, I agree with you, I don't think they should have a say in how property management companies that operate entirely inside a state conduct their business but unfortunately for both of us the CDC has proven otherwise and has regulated an area that is within a state and not a port of entry. Whether it's being challenged or not is irrelevant, this is what is called an example as you say.

 

[T & R]

Until there are ports willing to take cruise ships, what the CDC says and does doesn't matter. A compromise on what? No ports. No cruises. CDC isn't even a player.

Until recently the CDC ban may have made cruise ships reluctant to go out a negotiate for ports because of the uncertainty of the ban. I think that has changed now and hopefully we will get some info from the meeting today. Now that there is light at the end of the tunnel I think we will be surprised how many port deals get done. Private islands seem to be on the top of the list. Right now the only open ports I know of are Barbados and Cozumel, so at least there are some options if some bold cruise line wants to be first in the water on 11/01.

 

[tvguy]

Until recently the CDC ban may have made cruise ships reluctant to go out a negotiate for ports because of the uncertainty of the ban. I think that has changed now and hopefully we will get some info from the meeting today. Now that there is light at the end of the tunnel I think we will be surprised how many port deals get done. Private islands seem to be on the top of the list. Right now the only open ports I know of are Barbados and Cozumel, so at least there are some options if some bold cruise line wants to be first in the water on 11/01.

Well, I have no inside information on the cruise industry but a couple of major corporations in other industries in the past week have basically pushed back resumption of normal operations until July 1, 2021. And they aren't businesses that transporting thousands of people in a confined space in and out of foreign countries.

 

[brentm77]

Lawyer here. Without searching cases, a quick look at the CFR makes me believe both @T & R and @Intr3pid are right. Note that I have zero experience with CDC regulations, so take this for what it is worth.

@Intr3pid is right that the CDC only has authority to control the spread of disease across U.S. borders and state borders. For the CDC to issue a quarantine, for example, it must find that the individual is "moving or about to move from a State into another State." Similar restrictions exist in other parts of the regulations.

On the other hand, like @T&R said, the feds interpret the above requirement very broadly (just like the Commerce Clause), and the regulations allow them to restrict completely intrastate travel of quarantined individuals.

• §70.5 (b)(2)(d) The Director may additionally apply the provisions in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section to individuals traveling entirely intrastate and to conveyances that transport such individuals upon the request of a State or local health authority of jurisdiction.

and

• §70.5 (b)(2)(e) The Director may additionally apply the provisions in paragraphs (a) through of this section (c) to individuals traveling interstate or entirely intrastate and to conveyances that transport such individuals whenever the Director makes a determination under 42 CFR 70.2 that based on the existence of inadequate local control such measures are needed to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or U.S. territory to any other State or U.S. territory.

Another regulations allows the CDC to supersede local authorities with protective measures when it determines they aren't doing enough:

• §70.2 Measures in the event of inadequate local control. Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.

While the CDC would need to show the risk caused by the local inaction was to surrounding states, it would be an extremely low bar given existing case law on the Commerce Clause. For example, the Supreme Court found a man planting his own garden for his own consumption, and not even selling it, fell within the fed's authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause. It would be very easy for the CDC to say a particular state's COVID-19 outbreak was significant enough to spill over into other states.

Also notice the how broad the CDC's authority is. It can take "such measures" as it deems reasonable.

On a side note, I find it interesting that the the CDC cannot quarantine healthy individuals, because it must find the individual is "believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease in a qualifying stage." Does anyone no which section of the code it relies on to ban cruising of non-quarantined individuals? It might be §70.2 above, but I suspect there is something more specific. I will have to look into that.

EDIT: The CDC is relying on 42 C.F.R. 71.32(b) primarily. It's a major stretch in my opinion. It reads:

• (a) Whenever the Director has reason to believe that any arriving person is infected with or has been exposed to any of the communicable diseases listed in an Executive Order, as provided under section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act, he/she may isolate, quarantine, or place the person under surveillance and may order disinfection or disinfestation, fumigation, as he/she considers necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of the listed communicable diseases. Executive Order 13295, of April 4, 2003, as provided under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), and as amended by Executive Order 13375 of April 1, 2005, contains the current revised list of quarantinable communicable diseases, and may be obtained at http://www.cdc.gov and http://www.archives.gov/federal- register. If this Order is amended, HHS will enforce that amended order immediately and update this reference.

It basically makes the argument that the passengers are already infected or may become infected. I don't see anything in the regulations allowing such action for a group of people that may become infected in the future. It also relies on 70.2 above, as I thought it might, and essentially says, "we don't think the locals are likely to do enough to control this from interstate spread, so we can do this."

 

[AquaDame]

Just a reminder that this is a cruise board, and politics chatter is supposedly against the rules (we've had to be very lenient on that one lately since there is a lot of overlap right now). Please try to keep the conversation on cruising and not what other areas the CDC is involved in.

 

[STH Cruising]

There is some confusion about the scope of various Federal bureaus and agencies referenced in this thread. As a starting point, CDC is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the only bank the CDC regulates would be the blood bank. Otherwise, banks are regulated by the Comptroller of the Currency, which is a bureau within the Department of Treasury. As another poster noted some of the CDC’s rulings on financial matter may well be unlawful. Of course the DOJ would be the agency prosecuting any violations of any Federal law or regulation.

I do not know if CDC can regulate traffic at a state border, but this is both difficult to enforce and just creates massive resistance by some people.

Personally, as a frequent cruiser (3-4 times per year), I am glad to see the no-sail order expiring at end of October. The industry seems to be taking responsible actions. With likely pre-cruise testing, masking and social distancing, along with upgrade of ship ventilation systems, I am mostly comfortable with cruising again. A vaccine would be especially helpful. My biggest concerns is reopening of ports of embarkation. Our next cruise departs from San Diego next spring, and I am concerned California will not be open.