A police officer issues Atilis Gym co-owners Ian Smith, left, and Frank Trumbetti summons outside their gym in Bellmawr, New Jersey, on May 19, 2020. The gym reopened for business, defying a state order that shut down nonessential businesses to help stem the spread of the coronavirus. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

A gym that attempted to reopen in defiance of New Jersey's COVID-19-related restrictions on businesses has filed a constitutional challenge over its classification as nonessential.

Atilis Gym Bellmawr claims in its suit that New Jersey's executive orders 107, 119 and 138 violate its due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and its rights under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The suit takes issue with New Jersey's determination that gyms are nonessential businesses while establishments, such as liquor stores and big box stores, were deemed essential and allowed to remain open.

The state's decision to allow some businesses to remain open but to close others was "not reasonable or rational," and was "arbitrary and random," making it a "denial of due process," the suit claims.

The lawsuit comes as many states are in the process of preparing to implement their plans for reopening. Businesses across the nation deemed nonessential by state governments have been pushing back with mixed results as states are often granted leeway in how to respond to a pandemic. Thus far, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to interfere, turning away a challenge to Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's order shutting down all nonessential businesses.

The claims in the Atilis Gym case are similar to the ones raised in Pennsylvania. Court watchers felt the justices declined to take that case because it was the first of its kind to have moved through the state court process, and the justices typically wait until an issue is addressed by multiple lower courts.

But the Supreme Court could get another chance to take up COVID-19 restrictions. On Monday, a California church petitioned the justices to hear a challenge to that state's lockdown measures. Lawyers for the South Bay United Pentecostal Church asked the justices to intervene after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit split 2-1, with the majority declining to overturn the state's action in light of health risks posed by COVID-19.

In the New Jersey case, Atilis Gym seeks an injunction against enforcement of the executive orders, a declaration that the state's executive orders violate the gym's civil rights, damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983, attorney fees and any other relief deemed just and appropriate.

Atilis Gym opened its doors on May 18 but on May 20 New Jersey Health Commissioner Judith Persichilli issued an emergency order directing it to remain closed. Persichilli is a defendant in the suit along with Gov. Phil Murphy, Attorney General Gurbir Grewal and State Police Superintendent Patrick Callahan. The lawsuit claims the government changed the locks on the gym on May 23, executing a "physical invasion taking."

The suit was filed by attorney James Mermigis of Syosset, New York. He said before the gym reopenened, its principals had made arrangements to take the temperature of patrons in order to determine if any of them might pose a health risk, and had spaced exercise machines six feet apart, among other precautions.

"My client was never given the opportunity to say, 'Hey, we can comply with social distancing standards, just as Target complies and Walmart complies,'" said Mermigis.

"I can think of a lot of people who think working out and going to a gym is an essential part of their day," Mermigis said.

The gym's owners are concerned about losing their business, but the state has not indicated when its restrictions will be lifted, Mermigis said. "Yes, people have died. People's businesses have died, too. There has to be a balance where the government needs to trust its citizens will act responsibly."

Lee Moore, a spokesman for the attorney general, declined to comment.

Other suits seeking to overturn New Jersey's COVID-19 executive orders have been filed by gun stores, a hair salon and a car wash, among others. The state also faces several suits from churches that seek to resume conducting services.

And gyms have challenged pandemic-related shutdowns in other states. In Ohio, a judge in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas granted a stay on May 20 against enforcement of a statewide order closing fitness centers. The judge said the state's order had "criminalized lawful businesses" and that "some of the plaintiffs' businesses will not survive the lockdown of two or more months." The suit was brought by a coalition of 35 gyms that was represented by a nonpartisan group, the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.

In Vermont, the state attorney general sued a Rutland gym for violating a statewide COVID-19 executive order on May 15, and the gym was ordered to close until further notice in a restraining order issued by a state judge that same day.

Mermigis also represents the owner of a gym in Valatie, New York, near Albany, that opened its doors in violation of state COVID-19 regulations. Mermigis has not filed any suit in that case. The facility has remained open, as enforcement of state orders in New York is left to local officials, said Mermigis.