Pennsylvania’s two largest cities have made their positions known in the ongoing case of five businesses — two from Warren County — that are seeking to have Gov. Tom Wolf’s business closure order overturned.

Both the City of Philadelphia and the City of Pittsburgh have filed amicus briefs with Pa. Supreme Court to express their views on the challenge to the order that closed non-life sustaining businesses in the Commonwealth.

In short, an amicus brief is a legal filing from a party — not one of those directly involved in the litigation — with a particular interest in a case.

The City of Philadelphia asserts that overturning the order will result in businesses “permitted to resume physical operations… and the probability of exponential spread of COVID-19.”

Citing that Philadelphia is one of the 10 most populous cities in the nation, the City argues that “more densely-populated areas like the City are at great risk of having the disease spread aggressively within their communities.”

They further argue that the order is needed “because the alternative — enforcing social distancing in all stores and businesses in Philadelphia — would be both unsafe and impossible” and say enforcement would “require City police and inspectors to enter all physical premises and closely observe whether physical distancing and hygiene requirements are satisfied, which would mean more person-to-person contact and spread of Covid-19. “The governor’s order has saved lives.”

The City of Pittsburgh, also writing in support of the order, asked the “court to consider the potential for the overrunning of the regional health care system, should the Governor’s efforts be hindered.

“In the wake of this exponential growth of COVID-19, the petitions, doggedly and myopically, seek to continue engaging in their personal business actions without concern to the effects upon fellow Pennsylvanians.”

Pittsburgh specifically highlighted the “great reduction in social interactions” from the order being carried out.

“Those interactions are one of… if not the primary method by which the COVID-19 virus spreads…. Pittsburgh does not make light of the sacrifices its citizens will endure during these trying times. However, on balance, the temporary loss of revenue/business cannot override the existential public health crises facing the Commonwealth and its municipalities.”

They also take a shot at the businesses challenging the order: “The narrowmindedness and self-serving nature of this request is, frankly, staggering.”

The Pa. Association of Realtors also filed a brief in the case, arguing they are “sensitive to the public health crisis now facing Pennsylvania, but must urge the Court to alleviate the severe threat to the critical infrastructure of the Commonwealth from Respondents’ restrictions of the operations of its members as somehow not ‘life sustaining.’

“To the contrary, the continued buying and selling of real estate is a critical part of the continued flow of life even in the midst of the present challenging state of affairs. Leaving home buyers and sellers in limbo and potentially without shelter during the COVID-19 health crisis is counterproductive to the Commonwealth’s stated goal of maintaining the health and safety of the Commonwealth’s residents.”

They call the order “inherently unsound and arbitrary. It finds no parallel in any other area of Pennsylvania law. Sweeping executive authority has been asserted with not a glimmer of legal clarity. This is unconstitutional for, as noted elsewhere, liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.”

Two of the businesses — a Bethlehem, Pa. realtor and a political candidate — have also filed supplemental applications for relief as Blueberry Golf Course has.

Online court records do not indicate that a date for argument before the court has been set.