A panel of judges listened to arguments Thursday related to an appeal case involving Butler County elected officials who questioned the state's authority during COVID-19.

“There was a large crowd in the courtroom,” said Butler County attorney Thomas W. King III, who spoke in court on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case. “People think it's an important case.”

The U.S. Third Circuit of Appeals conducted a session Thursday in Philadelphia to hear arguments between the two sides on the issue, centered around Gov. Tom Wolf and Secretary of Health Alison Beam's use of orders to impose restrictions.

The defendants, Wolf and Beam, seek to overturn a September decision by U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV, who had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' claim that business shutdown and stay-at-home orders violated certain constitutional rights.

Although Stickman agreed with the plaintiffs, he dismissed Butler, Fayette, Greene and Washington counties from the case, stating they lacked capacity to sue. Still, four Butler County elected officials and seven county businesses remained attached to the suit, which sought no damages.

In October, the appellate court granted a stay of Stickman's decision, so it could review the case further.

During Thursday's session, J. Bart DeLone from the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office argued on behalf of the appellant that the point made by the decision is now moot, since the orders in question ended on their own accord.

“There's no active case or controversy left,” DeLone said.

In response, King said the position of the secretary of health still holds the power to enact the same orders.

“We do not want these (orders) ever to be repeated in Pennsylvania,” King said.

Three judges made up the panel, including Kent A. Jordan of Delaware and Patty Shwartz and Michael A. Chagares of New Jersey. The public had access to these arguments from live-streamed audio on YouTube.

The three judges will render a decision in the coming weeks, although there is no deadline for that decision. If the judges rule that the case is moot, Stickman's decision could be changed.

Jordan addressed the matter of recurrence and asked DeLone if it was possible the same exact orders could be reissued in the future, to which DeLone responded that they could.

Citing a nationwide concern for the virus' delta variant, DeLone said he believed it highly unlikely those same orders would be issued again, but he agreed that it is possible in the current framework of power.

“Because we don't know what we'll be facing, I can't make that blanket statement,” he said.

Jordan responded, stating certain conditions must be in place for a case to be deemed moot.

“It must be absolutely clear that the alleged wrongful behavior is not expected to recur,” the judge said.

DeLone said recurrence of the same orders is unlikely because more research has been completed, masks are being used when necessary and more than 60% of the state's population has been fully vaccinated.

“Can I give an assurance that something along these lines will happen again? No, I cannot,” DeLone said. “Can I say that it's reasonably expected to be reinstated? No way.”

As part of his argument, King defended the idea that the case is not moot. He said residents throughout the state witnessed and suffered under the orders once, and that was too much.

“They are viable to be repeated, and they are likely to be repeated in the future,” King said.

Jordan said the case had already been won by the plaintiff, and he asked King whether the defense against the appeal was needed.

“Why are you arguing so hard against mootness, when if the appeal is deemed moot, the appeal stands and you're the winner?” the judge asked.

King said his primary concern is that the orders could be again enacted.

“The citizens of Pennsylvania look to this court to ensure that these types of things won't happen again,” he said.

Jordan then rebutted that they don't have the type of power to stop an order from being enacted in the first place.

“Somehow, no matter what we said, if an order from the governor does come out, you'll still have to go to court (to enforce it),” the judge said.

DeLone was later offered one last opportunity to argue having the case deemed moot and the decision overturned.

“The fact that the circumstances on the ground have changed doesn't change the missteps that Judge Stickman made below,” he said.

Joining King at the plaintiff's table was Butler County attorney Thomas Breth, who said it could be anywhere between six weeks to three months before a decision is rendered.

Breth said the plaintiffs continue to be comfortable with their position in the case, but there is always a level of uncertainty.

“We think it's founded in law and fact,” Breth said. “You're always leery when waiting for a decision from the court. Whatever the court does, we'll respond in the appropriate manner.”