A hearing involving county residents who are against the statewide school mask mandate has been delayed slightly.

In lieu of the Thursday hearing, the Commonwealth Court has opted to accept briefs from both sides of the legal battle.

“We agreed to submit the legal questions in the case by brief,” said attorney Thomas King III of Butler, who represents the plaintiffs.

Seven of the nine parents listed as plaintiffs, not including two state legislators, are Butler County residents whose children attend schools in the Butler and Slippery Rock area school districts.

King will file a brief by Thursday. The Attorney General's Office representing the defendants, including Acting Secretary of Health Alison Beam, will file its own brief by Sept. 23.

After the two briefs are received, a judge will then make a ruling.

King said Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon had informed the two sides of this during a conference earlier this week.

He said Fizzano Cannon said a decision would likely be made quickly after both briefs are filed.

King said his arguments have remained unchanged since filing the lawsuit Sept. 3.

King said the first of two key questions he will likely raise in the brief will be whether Beam had been given the power to impose a mask mandate like the one she issued Aug. 31 that required all students to wear masks in school.

He said the second question is if Beam has that authority, did she go through the proper channels to impose the rule?

“When you go through the statutes and the rules, I think she didn't have the power she claims she has,” King said. “Even if she had the authority to do it, she didn't do it correctly.”

King said that in his brief he also will include a recent determination by the state House Health Committee.

State Rep. Kathy L. Rapp, R-65th, chairwoman of the House Health Committee, released a letter Tuesday requesting a determination regarding the mask mandate.

According to Rapp, Beam violated the law by issuing the mandate because as a “regulation,” it should require the secretary to follow the process proscribed by the Regulatory Review Act to issue it.

King said the statement by Rapp falls in line with their own questions raised in the suit. He said if the state wins this case, it could set a bad precedent in future decisions by the secretary of health.

“It's not just about masks in schools,” King said. “If she has the power to prescribe masks for kids in school, what else does she have the power to do?”

A decision favoring the opponents of the mask mandate would allow them to pursue a stay that could halt the mandate.

The losing side could file an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.