Gov. Tom Wolf has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a petition from a group of  Pennsylvania business owners who are challenging his order from March that closed nearly all nonessential businesses in the state.

On Monday, Wolf submitted a 43-page brief to the justices defending his authority to impose the sweeping orders that has shuttered nearly all businesses in the Keystone State in an effort to help slow the spread of the highly contagious coronavirus. The business owners, led by a political candidate from Allegheny County named Danny DeVito, are asking the justices to block Wolf from enforcing the order.

Wolf's filing comes days after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito requested that the governor respond to the business owners' petition, which had been filed to the high court April 27—two weeks after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the initial challenge in state court.

The business owners have argued that Wolf's order was overly broad, wreaked undue havoc on Pennsylvania's economy, and the state Supreme Court's rejection of their claims has left business owners across the state without access to court. Wolf, however, said the business owners' petition mischaracterized the order and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling, and failed to meet its burden of establishing Wolf acted outside his authority. Instead, Wolf argued, the petitioners' argument simply hinged on policy disagreements, and showed "an indifference towards the more than 60,000 lives lost to the COVID-19 pandemic so far."

"Much of what they argue amounts to public policy disagreements as to how the governor used his authority. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court applied well-established principles to conclude that the governor had that authority. Applicants do not challenge the principles themselves; they merely disagree with that court's conclusions," the brief, filed by Chief Deputy Attorney General J. Bart DeLone, said. "More fundamentally, such public policy prescriptions, as ill-founded as they are, are not legal grounds for challenging the governor's order. The application should be denied."

In their case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the plaintiffs—Friends of Danny DeVito (the campaign committee for state representative candidate Danny DeVito); Kathy Gregory; B&J Laundry; Blueberry Hill Public Golf Course & Lounge; and Caledonia Land Co.—argued that the executive order violates the separation of powers doctrine and constitutes a taking requiring just compensation.

They also argued that they were not afforded due process in the formation of the list of life-sustaining and non-life-sustaining businesses or in the waiver process, both of which they alleged were arbitrary, capricious and vague. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that Wolf's order violated equal protection principles and that it interfered with the DeVito committee's right of free speech and assembly.

With regard to the separation of powers argument, Justice Christine Donohue, writing for the majority, said the Emergency Management Services Code specifically gave Wolf the power to issue executive orders and proclamations that will have the full force of law. Those orders include declaring a disaster emergency and controlling the "'ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, the movement of persons within the area and the occupancy of premises therein,'" added Donohue, joined by Justices Max Baer, Debra Todd and David Wecht.

The majority also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Wolf's order constituted a regulatory taking.

In their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the business owners said the issue was of national importance and that a ruling by the high court would impact business owners across the country, as many governors have similarly issued closure orders.

In an amended petition, also filed Monday, the business owners noted that Wolf has outlined a plan to allow for businesses in many counties to reopen in a limited fashion. However, the business owners said the move was not sufficient, since there is still no timeline for reopening the rest of the state.

"Through his reopening, the governor is admitting that a more regional response based upon the data for that region would have been more reasonable, rational and tailored; however, petitioners do not agree the governor's plan is in fact reasonably necessary, in the public interest and not duly burdensome and continue to claim and argue the executive order should be stayed and then struck down," the petitioners said.

Harrisburg attorney Marc Scaringi filed the briefs on behalf of the petitioners.