Plaintiffs fighting Gov. Wolf's shutdown order say a stay is unnecessary

Attorneys who led the fight against Gov. Tom Wolf’s covid-19 shutdown orders said on Monday that he will likely not prevail on appeal and that allowing the judge’s order to be stayed just compounds the harm already done.

U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV issued a ruling on Sept. 14 declaring unconstitutional Wolf’s orders in the spring that limited gathering sizes, shut down nonessential businesses and ordered citizens to stay home.

On Wednesday, lawyers for the state Attorney General’s Office, who represent the governor, filed a motion to stay Stickman’s order, pending appeal.

In their motion, the attorneys claimed that lifting the gathering-size restrictions now would take away “all of the progress Pennsylvania has made over the last six months,” and result in an increased rate of infection and death.

Thomas W. King III, one of the attorneys who represents the seven businesses who challenged the shutdown orders in a federal lawsuit, said in their response filed Monday that the government has failed to produce any evidence of that.

After two days of testimony, more than 80 exhibits and 20 supplemental exhibits, the plaintiffs wrote, the government was unable to show that the orders mitigated the spread of the virus.

“Despite the complete lack of evidence, defendants continue to assert that further constitutional violations are needed to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from themselves,” the filing said. “If such assertions were true, surely, defendants would have been able to produce some expert testimony or evidence in support thereof.

“None was produced and the time for such unsubstantiated rhetoric has long since passed.”

The plaintiffs’ attorneys also wrote that Wolf has failed to establish any of the four elements required for a stay, which include that they will likely prevail on appeal; that they will suffer irreparable harm if it is not granted; that the plaintiffs will not suffer greater harm if it is granted; and that the public interest is served by granting the stay.

In addressing the public interest, King wrote that there is no evidence that any of the steps taken in the shutdown orders show an impact on the spread of cover-19.

“Therefore, defendants have not established that the public interest works in favor of a stay,” he wrote. “Indeed, the public interest militates against the granting of a stay.”