The plot thickens

https://foxnews.com/politics/alito-orders-pennsylvania-to-respond-in-case-asking-supreme-court-to-halt-enforcement-of-stay-at-home-order

Justice Samuel Alito this week ordered the Pennsylvania government to respond to arguments from a variety of Pennsylvanians asking the Supreme Court to halt enforcement of Gov. Tom Wolf's strict stay-at-home order, aimed at fighting the coronavirus, because they say it is unconstitutional.

The Pennsylvanians behind the suit – called petitioners in Supreme Court parlance – are arguing that their rights under the First, Fifth and 14th Amendments have been violated through Wolf's order. The petition lays out a variety of grounds on which it says the order is unconstitutional.

"[T]he Order violated the Petitioners rights not to be deprived of their property without due process of law guaranteed by the [Fifth and 14th Amendments], the right not to have their property taken without just compensation guaranteed by the [Fifth Amendment], their right to judicial review guaranteed by the [5th and Fourteenth Amendments], their right to equal protection of the law guaranteed by the [14th Amendment], and their right to free speech and assembly guaranteed by the [First Amendment]," it says.

The group of petitioners from Pennsylvania includes Danny DeVito, a candidate for the state House of Representatives, who says the order keeps him from accessing his campaign office whereas his incumbent opponent can access her office. There is also a golf course that claims it is losing revenue because it is not able to open thanks to Wolf's order and a real estate agent who says she is unable to work because her business was put on a list of "non-life-sustaining" businesses.

To support their claims, the petitioners also cite a variety of bleak economic metrics, outside criticism of Wolf's order, and concerns "about the arbitrariness of the waiver process" that doles out exceptions to the order, among other things.