Gov. Tom Wolf, as promised, has requested a stay of a federal court ruling that found his shutdown orders issued in March to slow the spread of the coronavirus pandemic were unconstitutional.

Butler attorney Tom King, lead attorney for the plaintiffs who represented Butler and three other counties, four Republican lawmakers and several small businesses, said he expected this move from the governor.

“I think their attempt to get a stay is appalling,” King said. “They violated the constitutional rights of 13 million Pennsylvanians. Now they want to go back and reinstate what they did before.”

Lawyers for the state attorney general's office, on behalf of Wolf and state Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine, on Wednesday filed a motion for the stay in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Upending the restrictions that placed limits on the size of public gatherings, Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in the defendants' motion, would have dire consequences.

“The virus still exists and continues to infect hundreds of Pennsylvanians each day,” he wrote. “Suddenly abandoning the large gathering limitations will allow the virus to freely spread throughout the commonwealth.

“This risk of harm to the public outweighs any harm to plaintiffs.”

In addition to seeking the stay, Shapiro filed a separate motion Wednesday to certify issues for appeal of U.S. District Court Judge William Stickman IV's ruling.

“We'll be vigorously opposing both (motions),” King vowed.

King said he expected to file responses Monday to the motions. He said the appeal will bring the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Regardless of whether the appeal is successful, either party could bring the lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court.Stickman, in his 66-page opinion Monday, found that the Wolf administration's COVID-19 stay-at-home and business closure orders to shut down were overreaching and arbitrary, and violated citizens' constitutional rights, specifically the First and 14th amendments.While acknowledging the governor's policies were “undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency,” Stickman said, those actions went too far.Even in an emergency, he wrote, “the authority of government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms — in place when times are good, but able to be cast aside in times of trouble.”The same day the ruling was issued, Wolf said he would seek the stay pending appeal.“The actions taken by the administration were mirrored by governors across the country and saved, and continue to save lives in the absence of federal action,” Wolf's spokeswoman Lyndsay Kensinger said in a statement Monday.“This decision is especially worrying as Pennsylvania and the rest of the country are likely to face a challenging time with the possible resurgence of COVID-19 and the flu in the fall and winter,” the statement said.

Stickman's ruling addressed the governor's business shutdown and stay-at-home orders, which were later eased or suspended.But the order also affected the state mandate that allows only 25 people for indoor events and 250 people for outdoor events.King said with the stay in play, residents and business owners have called in frustration over what they are allowed to do. He said he has received calls from across the country about what the decision could mean for them.“They've been so driven by the tyrannical actions of the governors of their states, they're afraid,” King said. “They want to know if this is real.”Shapiro argued for the status quo and the good of the public in seeking the stay.“Eliminating the commonwealth's ability to limit large gatherings will inescapably increase the prevalence of superspreader events, leading to a larger number of people dying from this disease than otherwise would occur,” he wrote in his motion.“As far as our medical science has come, death remains irrevocable. Because a lack of a stay will have grave consequences, the defendants implore this court to grant that stay.”

The attorney general's office filing also referenced other federal and state court rulings that upheld Wolf's executive orders made in response to the pandemic.A U.S. Middle District of Pennsylvania judge in May, in one of those decisions, refused to overturn the state's stay-at-home order and rejected a call for a temporary restraining order, saying the court would not micromanage public policy in the midst of a pandemic.In another ruling in April, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a different challenge over the stay-at-home and business closure orders. The court ruled the governor's state of emergency powers and the temporary nature of the closure order superseded the plaintiff's concerns.More recently, a U.S. Eastern District of Pennsylvania judge last month dismissed parts of a separate lawsuit that challenged Wolf's business shutdown, writing he was skeptical of claims seeking to challenge emergency government action in the wake of a global health crisis.“The split in authority created by (Stickman's) opinion makes it difficult, if not impossible, for defendants to manage the pandemic effectively and has created confusion and uncertainty throughout Pennsylvania,” Shapiro's motion said.“Any harm that a stay may cause plaintiffs is greatly outweighed by the public harm that will result if a stay is denied.”

As the case continues, others have viewed the recent win against Wolf as an opportunity to test the waters on their own.“I've heard a lot of people are consulting with their own lawyers and talking to them about whether they have claims,” King said.He said he remains focused on the task at hand, which is crafting a response, and fighting with the same energy as before.“It's not easy to sue the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the governor,” King said. “Those entities are not to be taken lightly.”<b>Eagle Staff Writer Nathan Bottiger contributed to this report.</b>