A federal judge in Pittsburgh on Tuesday denied a stay of his ruling that found Gov. Tom Wolf's shutdown orders issued in March to slow the spread of the coronavirus pandemic were unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge William Stickman IV issued a 15-page order, in which he cited in part the governor's less than negligible likelihood of winning on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for his decision to deny the stay.

Stickman also said the public interest would be harmed by a stay.

“The public has an interest in constitutional governance,” he wrote, “and, more specifically not being subject to unconstitutional governmental action.”

Butler attorney Tom King, lead attorney for the plaintiffs who represented Butler and three other counties, four Republican lawmakers and several small businesses, who sued the Wolf administration, said he was “pleased” with Tuesday's ruling.

“It vindicates the position taken by the commissioners in Butler County to initiate this litigation and it vindicates the position we've taken all along, which is that 13 million Pennsylvanians had their constitutional rights violated by the governor and the secretary of health.”The denial of the stay comes one week after Stickman's opinion Sept. 14 that found Wolf's stay-at-home and business closure orders to be unconstitutional.The governor's limits on gatherings of 25 people indoors and 250 outdoors are also unconstitutional, Stickman ruled, and specifically violate the First Amendment's right to assemble.The Wolf administration Sept. 16 filed a motion to stay the ruling to ensure “life-saving tools ... remain in place.”Additionally, the state Attorney General's Office, on behalf of Wolf and Dr. Rachel Levine, Pennsylvania's health secretary, who are the defendants in the lawsuit, is appealing the ruling to the Third Circuit.In an unrelated news conference Tuesday, both Wolf and Levine answered questions regarding the stay and what it means moving forward.“Since the stay was turned down, I guess for the time being, the court ruling stands,” Wolf said. “We'll move ahead with an appeal to the Third Circuit.”When asked if any consequences exist in the wake of the court ruling for gatherings of more than 250 people, the governor did not directly respond.“We haven't decided at this point,” Wolf said.Levine said health consequences exist no matter the confusion over enforcement and legal consequences.“It's not OK. There are consequences to people's actions,” she said. “This is not a political issue. This is not a partisan issue. This is a public health issue. The virus is a biological entity. It's going to spread and reproduce. That's what it does.”In the request for the stay, Wolf's attorneys argued that it would help to protect the public health.“A stay will maintain the status quo, providing clarity for Pennsylvanians while the Third Circuit reviews the court's decision,” the attorneys wrote.The administration also argued that it would have a “reasonable possibility” to win on appeal.Stickman, in his ruling that denied the stay, did not share that belief.“While defendants contend that they have a strong likelihood of success on appeal for several reasons, the court holds that the record does not support their position,” he wrote.“The primary focus of the request for a stay is the court's determination that the imposition of numeric congregate gathering restrictions violated the First Amendment,” Stickman continued. “It is critical to note that the court did not hold the defendants were powerless to enact limitations on gatherings.“Rather, the court merely held that the First Amendment will not permit a specific numeric cap on some gatherings while imposing a limitation based on general occupancy on other gatherings.”Specifically, the judge referenced a confidential settlement agreement between the state Department of Health and the organizers of a large car show held in Cumberland County in June.The agreement allowed for daily crowds of up to 20,000 people during the four-day event — dubbed Spring Carlisle — at the 82-acre Carlisle Fairgrounds,Additionally, Stickman cited social justice protests that swept the state — and nation — throughout the summer that also exceeded the outdoor congregate limitations.“Defendants' treatment of Spring Carlisle and the large public protests across the commonwealth undermine their current argument that imminent and irreparable harm will occur absent their ability to impose numeric occupancy caps,” he wrote.The ruling to deny the stay, King said, means that the current restrictions, including those limiting indoor and outdoor gatherings, cannot be enforced.“This judge has clearly said that the congregate numbers established by Wolf and Levine are unconstitutional,” King said. “In so far as that goes, the 25 (person indoor limit) and 250 (person outdoor limit) are gone. That is really clear.”

Tom King