The basis of Friday's lawsuit against the mask mandate may look familiar to county residents.

Petitioners' attorney Thomas King III of Butler will again be arguing that the state's Acting Secretary of Health Alison Beam is unconstitutionally overestimating her authority to enact the order.

“We think the order as it's written doesn't follow the law, wasn't done correctly and exceeds any authority she has,” King said.

The order, issued by Beam on Aug. 31, requires students across the state to wear masks while in school beginning this week

The lawsuit, filed in Commonwealth Court, argues two major points in seeking an injunction and declaratory judgement that could rescind the order or enact a stay to halt its enforcement.

A hearing is scheduled Sept. 16 in Harrisburg.

“The reality we are living in now is much different than it was just a month ago,” Beam said in issuing the mandate. “With case counts increasing, the situation has reached the point that we need to take this action to protect our children, teachers and staff.”

King said arguments made in the mask lawsuit echo those made when Butler County, along with other Southwestern Pennsylvanian counties, argued against Gov. Tom Wolf and his administration's use of executive orders to shut down the state during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic last year.

King said the first part of the argument is that Beam ignored proper channels when administering the latest order.

King said Beam should have proposed the order to the state Health Advisory Board, which in turn would hold public hearings before issuing the rule.

“By issuing this without following the rules, they have, in our opinion, violated state law,” King said.

King said Beam also is making a similar overreach as her predecessor, former Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine. He said both have used the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention law of 1955 to justify their order's power.

King said the Wolf administration has used this justification without citing the entirety of the text, which leaves out some of the doctrine's meaning.

The text King refers to is found under Section 5, “Control Measures” of the law, and it outlines actions the Department of Health can take once it has identified someone with a transmittable disease that poses a risk to the public.

“Upon the receipt by a local board or department of health or by the department, as the case may be, of a report of a disease which is subject to isolation, quarantine, or any other control measure, the local board or department of health or the department shall carry out the appropriate control measures in such manner and in such place as is provided by rule or regulation,” the law reads.

King said whenever the governor or his administration reference the law, they never state the part about “appropriate control measures” being determined and set by rule and regulation.

There also is no mention of allowing control measures to be imposed upon healthy or uninfected people within the law.

“The part they leave out conveniently is 'by rule or regulation,'” King said. “If this sounds like Butler County stuff, it is. There is no power to isolate or quarantine healthy people, and that's what they're trying to do.”

To further bolster their suit, a list of parent petitioners signed onto the suit with the top two names being the most prominent.State Senate Pro Tempore Jake Corman, R-34th, is listed first, followed by state Rep. Jess Topper, R-78th; however it is noted in the suit that both joined the suit as parents, not legislators.Two Christian schools also signed onto the suit, and one is Butler County's Calvary Baptist Church, which operates the Calvary Academy private school.Additionally, seven of the nine parents listed as plaintiffs, not including the two legislators, are Butler County residents whose children attend schools, including Butler Area School District and Slippery Rock Area School District.All of the affidavits entered in the complaint share the similar verbiage. In the documents, all the parents acknowledge they are aware of the mask order, but they will continue to send their children to school unmasked.“I do not intend to comply with the secretary of health's order regarding mask/face covering mandates,” said the affidavits.The timeline for the lawsuit remains uncertain; however according to the order, the start date for the mask mandate is set for Sept. 7, and it will remain in effect “until otherwise terminated.”