A federal appellate court ruled Tuesday that the county's lawsuit over state COVID-19 restrictions was moot, but the lawyers challenging the restrictions vow a further fight.

The ruling, written by Judge Patty Shwartz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, found that, because orders issued by Gov. Tom Wolf and the secretary of health had expired, the Legislature terminated Wolf's disaster declaration, and no state official has indicated they intend to issue new orders. No legal remedy existed, and, as such, the court cannot rule on the merits of the case.

Thomas King, a Butler attorney representing the COVID-19 order challengers, pledged to appeal in hopes to get a final answer on the arguments raised.

“The 3rd Circuit did not address the constitutional issues raised in the case,” King said Wednesday. “But we intend to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review this opinion and to affirm Judge (William S.) Stickman's order (that the orders were unconstitutional).”

Butler, Fayette, Greene and Washington counties, along with myriad politicians, businesses and business owners, originally filed the suit in 2020, challenging the stay-at-home, business-closure and congregation-limiting orders promulgated by Wolf and the health secretary.In September, Stickman, of the Western Pennsylvania federal district court, ruled in favor of the challengers, ruling the state's orders were unconstitutional, if well-intentioned, but dismissed the counties for lacking the capacity to sue.Wolf and the health secretary appealed Stickman's ruling, claiming before the appellate court that Stickman's ruling was based on a misinterpretation of law and an incomplete understanding of the facts. The appellate court stayed Stickman's ruling in late September, leaving the state's COVID-19 mitigation orders in effect until it could reach a decision on the case itself.

The court, in ruling the case is moot, determined that because the orders are no longer in effect, to answer the legal arguments would be to rule on a hypothetical, rather than a real, case.“It is undisputed that the challenged orders have all expired, and a legal remedy aimed at those particular orders is, by definition, impossible,” Judge Kent A. Jordan wrote in a concurring opinion. “The case is thus moot, unless one of the two well-known exceptions to mootness applies.”And both Jordan and the majority found neither such exception exists.One exception would have been if Wolf or the health secretary chose to stop the orders as a response to the lawsuit, but the court ruled that exception didn't apply because “the secretary maintained her orders for several months after” litigation commenced.The second exception falls under a doctrine called “capable of repetition yet evading review.” That exception would have applied if the orders were too short in duration to be fully litigated and if there is a “reasonable expectation” the challengers “will be subject to the same action again,” with “more than a theoretical possibility” the orders would be reimplemented.But, the court found, the challenged orders were already litigated with “a full evidentiary record” and, while the health secretary has the ability to issue new, similar orders, there is no reasonable expectation the state would issue such orders.If the challengers were to file an appeal, it would be due in the nation's highest court within 60 days.