Butler and three other counties, along with several Republican lawmakers and small businesses, will get their day in court — quickly.

A federal judge granted the group of plaintiffs a speedy hearing on their claims that Gov. Tom Wolf and state Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine violated their constitutional rights.

Specifically, U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV ruled that the group's lawsuit challenging the state's business closure order and reopening plan can proceed immediately on three fronts.

“It's a pretty significant victory, I think,” Tom King, of the firm Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham in Butler, who is the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said Friday.

Stickman's ruling came Thursday, just one day after he heard oral arguments from King and Karen Romano, the state's chief deputy attorney general, over the plaintiff's motion for a “speedy hearing” under Rule 57 of federal law.

The motion in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania asked for a declaratory judgment finding the Wolf administration's orders, imposed to combat the coronavirus pandemic, violated the First, Fifth and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Denied action on two counts

While Stickman granted the plaintiffs an expedited hearing on three counts in their petition, he denied similar action on two other counts.

“The First Amendment enshrines the most fundamental rights held by a free people. Expedited review of alleged ongoing infringement of those rights is certainly warranted,” Stickman wrote in his opinion.

“Moreover,” he continued, “violations of substantive due process and equal protection that interfere with important or fundamental rights, including the right to operate a legitimate business and/or earn a living, are serious deprivations that could, as plaintiffs argue, cause continuing, ongoing and perhaps irreparable harm. Expedited review of alleged ongoing infringement of those rights is certainly warranted.”

The attorneys for both parties have until 5 p.m. Monday to file a status report with the court on how they plan to abide by the court order.

A spokesman for the state attorney general's office declined comment on the ruling Friday, saying only, “We are working with our clients and opposing counsel to comply with the court's directives on scheduling.”

The plaintiff's suit, filed May 7, laid out five counts of alleged constitutional wrongdoing by the Wolf administration's COVID-19 shutdown orders. Greene, Fayette and Washington were the other counties that joined in the action.

Five counts outlined in suit

In Count I, the suit argues that the defendants violated the taking clause that “provides that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Wolf's business shutdown order “worked to deprive numerous residents, including some of the plaintiff herein, of their property interests.”

In Count II, the suit contends Wolf's decision closing “non-life sustaining” businesses was arbitrary, capricious and interfered with “the concept of ordered liberty.”

Additionally, the orders deprived plaintiffs of their “right to pursue lawful employment,” according to the suit.

In Count III, the suit addresses the business waiver system and how it violates procedural due process of some of the plaintiffs.

The waivers, the suit said, “do not permit evaluation by a neutral arbitrator, nor does it provide for an opportunity to be heard, to present witnesses or to appeal.

In Count IV, the suit called the administration's classifying some businesses as “life-sustaining” and others as “non-life sustaining” “arbitrary and irrational.”

It also calls the state's reopening plan unfair, in part, because it treats “similarly situated counties” unequally.

In Count V, the suit claims the defendants violated the First Amendment by limiting public gatherings, thereby imposing undue burden on plaintiff's rights to attend public meetings, religious worship and political events and other activities.

Stickman, in his order, denied the speedy hearing request for counts I and III, but granted the expedited review for counts II, IV and V.

For counts I and III, declaratory judgment was not appropriate, he ruled. For example, regarding count III, he noted that the business waiver process was closed and no new waivers were being issued.

Those violations, as alleged by the plaintiffs “are in the past, even if the damages incurred from the denial of a waiver may be ongoing,” Stickman wrote.

But he ruled declaratory relief was justified for counts II, IV and V because the alleged violation of rights are current and ongoing.

In his ruling, the judge referred to the state's color-coded reopening plan, noting that even under the most relaxed “green” phase, businesses and places of worship still face restrictions including occupancy limitations.

Attorneys for both sides since Friday have been talking by telephone in hopes of finding common ground on how to move forward with the speedy hearing proceedings.

By the end of the business day Monday, they must submit a report to the court on points of agreement and disagreement over matters of discovery, creation of a stipulated factual record and if an evidentiary hearing would be needed.

If necessary, Stickman said he would conduct by teleconference a meeting of the attorneys at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday to resolve any remaining disputes.