Attorneys on behalf of the county submitted a response to Gov. Tom Wolf's seeking a stay on his COVID-19 mitigation orders. The appeal process continues for a court ruling that struck them down.

“I'm optimistic the judge will deny the stay, but it's anybody's guess what a federal judge might do,” said Butler attorney Tom King, of Dillon McCandless King Coulter and Graham.

Last week, Wolf requested an appeal and stay, both separate motions, just two days after U.S. District Court Judge William Stickman IV issued a 66-page opinion that found some of the Wolf administration's COVID-19 mitigation efforts had violated citizens' constitutional rights.

In the request for the stay, Wolf's attorneys argued that the stay would help to maintain the public health.

“A stay will maintain the status quo, providing clarity for Pennsylvanians while the Third Circuit reviews the court's decision,” the request said.

The county countered the state with an argument that the court already gave an opinion that the mitigation efforts violated constitutional rights.

“In their motion to stay (on) Sept. 14, 2020, defendants seek this court's permission to further violate the constitutional rights of plaintiffs along with other citizens of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who have suffered under defendants' unconstitutional orders and actions,” said the county's response.

In arguing against the stay, the county's response looked at legal precedence, which established criteria for the stay, including a reasonable belief the state could win the appeal, proof the state will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, proof the other party will not suffer the same harm if the stay is granted, and proof that the public interest will be served by granting the stay.

“Defendants have failed to establish any of the four elements required to stay this court's September 14, 2020, orders,” the response said in its conclusion, which asked for the court to deny the motion for stay.

The response also pointed to the solidity of Stickman's decision and the lack of evidence from the state's arguments in that case, which included two full days of testimony, 80 exhibits, 20 supplemental exhibits and three judicial notice orders.

“Defendants failed to produce a single expert witness or any other evidence establishing that defendants' orders mitigated the spread of COVID-19,” the response said. “None was produced and the time for such unsubstantiated rhetoric has long since passed.”

King said the lack of experts involved in defending the defendants' case is also telling.

“They are saying this is greatly going to impact their ability to control the pandemic, and we've basically said there's no basis for that,” King said. “Not a single doctor was called for this case. They couldn't point to a single expert.”

King said his optimism was bolstered by the filing of documented support by the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, headquartered in Washington D.C.

The Eagle Forum also called for the denial of the stay, and further called for an injunction against the defendants.

“It was pretty forceful,” King said.

King said there is no deadline for the judge to respond to the motion to stay, but he expects a decision will likely come by the end of the week. He said in the meantime, he will begin work on the response to Wolf's appeal of the court ruling, which includes the appeal itself.

He expects to have that response completed and submitted within the next 10 days, adhering to deadline constraints.