The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has rejected a challenge by several businesses — including Blueberry Hill Golf Course — to overturn Gov. Tom Wolf’s closure of non-life sustaining businesses.

The Court issued the order on Monday, refusing to overturn one of Wolf’s most significant efforts to combat COVID-19 across the Commonwealth.

A majority of the court concluded that Gov. Wolf and Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine “had the statutory authority to issue the Executive Order” and that the businesses “have not established any basis for relief based upon their constitutional challenge.”

Accordingly, the Court denied the “claim for relief requested” which was “to vacate or strike the Executive Order.”

Justices Max Baer, Debra Todd, and David Wecht joined Christine Donohue in the decision while Kevin Dougherty and Sally Mundy signed off on a concurring and dissenting opinion crafted by Chief Justice Thomas Saylor.

The majority found that “our analysis of the Emergency Code and our statutory construction of the provisions implicated by Petitioners leads us to conclude that it provides the authority for the Governor’s issuance of the Executive Order.”

Part of the challenge to the order centered on the fact that the state’s definition of “natural disaster” did not specifically include viruses.

The majority ruled that interpretation was incorrect, citing that the Emergency Code includes language that involves incidents that cause “‘substantial damage to property, hardship, suffering or possible loss of life.’ In this respect, the COVID-19 pandemic is one of the ‘same general nature or class as those specifically enumerated'” and can be considered a disaster.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is, by all definitions, a natural disaster and a catastrophe of massive proportions. Its presence in and movement through Pennsylvania triggered the Governor’s authority under the Emergency Code,” they continue. “More fundamentally, Petitioners’ argument ignores the nature of this virus and the manner in which it is transmitted. The virus spreads primarily through person-to-person contact, has an incubation period of up to fourteen days, one in four carriers of the virus are asymptomatic, and the virus can live on surfaces for up to four days. Thus, any location (including Petitioners’ businesses) where two or more people can congregate is within the disaster area.”

More from the opinion: “Against this backdrop, Petitioners suggest that the public interest would best be served by keeping businesses open to maintain the free flow of business. Although they cite to none, we are certain that there are some economists and social scientists who support that policy position. But the policy choice in this emergency was for the Governor and the Secretary to make and so long as the means chosen to meet the emergency are reasonably necessary for the purpose of combating the ravages of COVID-19, it is supported by the police power…. We recognize the serious and significant economic impact of the closure of Petitioners’ businesses. However, the question is whether it is unduly oppressive, thus negating the utilization of the police power. Faced with protecting the health and lives of 12.8 million Pennsylvania citizens, we find that the impact of the closure of these businesses caused by the exercise of police power is not unduly oppressive. The protection of the lives and health of millions of Pennsylvania residents is the sine qua non (something necessary) of a proper exercise of police power.

The court also upheld the waiver process implemented as part of the order, concluding that the process “provides sufficient due process under the circumstances presented here.”

Saylor’s concurring and dissenting opinion concluded that the case “may involve issues of disputed fact” and suggested the court should let the order stand but refer the case to the court of original jurisdiction – Commonwealth Court, where fact-finding would be possible.

He supported the majority’s conclusion that COVID-19 should be considered a disaster, he also pointed out the potential long-term consequences of the order.

“While the majority repeatedly stresses that such closure is temporary… this may in fact not be so for businesses that are unable to endure the associated revenue losses. Additionally, the damage to surviving businesses may be vast.

“At least short of martial law, however — relative to the broad-scale closure of Pennsylvania business for a prolonged period — I don’t believe the executive’s determinations of propriety can go untested in the face of the present allegations of inconsistency and irrationality.”