Maryland officials are asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit against Gov. Larry Hogan over the constitutionality of his 42-day-old stay-at-home order, saying it is an extraordinary yet necessary means to protect residents from the COVID-19 pandemic without which “more death and illness would result.”

The state’s arguments were laid out in a 54-page argument submitted late Friday afternoon by Attorney General Brian Frosh, responding to the lawsuit filed earlier this month by a group of Republican state delegates, religious leaders and business owners who say that Hogan is unfairly picking which businesses can remain open during the pandemic and that he is unconstitutionally infringing upon people’s rights to assemble and worship.

The lawsuit is part of a small yet vocal movement urging governors and mayors across the U.S. to “reopen” and lift stay-at-home orders. Similar lawsuits have been filed in Virginia (to mixed results), Wisconsin, Illinois, Arizona, California and others. Attorney General William Barr is also jumping into the fight, threatening to join lawsuits against states whose stay-at-home orders could infringe on constitutional liberties. The Department of Justice has already intervened on behalf of a Virginia resident who says the state’s restrictions violate his right to worship freely.

While protesters did take to the streets of Annapolis in late April and again earlier this month to demand that Hogan lift or at least relax his stay-at-home order, most polling shows that a majority of Americans do not want businesses to reopen yet and many governors — including Hogan — who have imposed restrictions remain popular.

In his filing, Frosh broadly defends Hogan’s March 30th stay-at-home order — which shuttered many businesses, prohibited gatherings of more than 10 people and limited travel to just “essential” purposes — as necessary to slowing the spread of COVID-19 in the state, which as of Sunday had infected more than 32,000 people and killed more than 1,600.

“The virulently infectious nature of the novel coronavirus and the absence of any vaccination or widely effective treatment has made the Stay-at-Home Order’s temporary prohibition on gatherings crucial to slowing spread of the disease,” said Frosh in the filing.

The attorney general — a Democrat — also pushed back on claims in the lawsuit that Hogan’s actions have been excessive. The lawsuit states that “not a single model, even the WHO [World Health Organization] the Governor cites in his original proclamation, indicated that extensive loss of life would occur in Maryland” from the pandemic.

“Construing the allegations of the complaint in the manner most favorable to them, plaintiffs seem to be taking the position that, while the rest of the world suffers from a once-in-a-century pandemic, Maryland is somehow immune, and there is no reason to believe that an ‘extensive loss of life’ has occurred, or will occur, here in Maryland. If only that were so,” he wrote. “It defies reality to suggest that the public health impact on Marylanders has not been extensive.”

In the lawsuit, nine religious leaders from across the state say Hogan overstepped his bounds by declaring churches non-essential and banning any gathering of more than 10 parishioners at a time. The leaders say this has caused them financial difficulties and left their flock without a necessary community during difficult times. One argues in an affidavit that Hogan is substituting his power for that of God.

“Dearest Governor, life and death is not in your power. Life is a gift of God and death is a result of sin that we all must go through; either now or later. Your duty as Governor is to fulfill the duties of your office within the bounds of the Constitution which you have sworn to uphold. I fear that your desire to sustain life has wooed you to a false idolatry of your own power. Please turn from this,” wrote Rev. Christopher Ogne of Lutheran Church of our Savior in Charles County.

But Frosh says that contrary to those claims, Hogan has allowed churches to continue operating — albeit in a limited manner.

“Whereas non-essential stores remain closed to the public, religious facilities of any faith are allowed to remain open and hold services in a number of different ways—through online, ‘drive-in,’ and small in-person services. Religious facilities were therefore given greater ability to continue their public operations than many commercial businesses,” he argued.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, an organization that has sided with states in their legal fights with churches over restrictions imposed in the wake of the pandemic, indicated Friday that it would join the legal fight on Maryland’s side.

Frosh similarly dismissed claims that Hogan’s order unconstitutionally infringes on First Amendment rights of peaceful protest and assembly, saying that it doesn’t prohibit people from demonstration or expressing their rights — but rather says they should do so in small or dispersed groups.

And two businesses — a private campground operator and an amusement park — say Hogan’s order improperly interferes with their functioning, costing them tens of thousands of dollars in revenue. Frosh calls the distinction of essential and non-essential businesses a “rational and justified policy response” based on what services those businesses offer — and whether allowing for large crowds in one place at a single time is one of them.

The legal battle is being waged as Maryland slowly considers a gradual reopening. Last week, Hogan said state parks and beaches would reopen to the public over the weekend, but businesses would have to remain closed and public gatherings limited until hospitalization rates from COVID-19 declined further. But Frosh says that the stay-at-home order remains a necessary response to the pandemic, and that the lawsuit against it ignores the threat posed by the virus.

“Theirs is not a targeted complaint, seeking to adjust one aspect of the Governor’s emergency orders,” he wrote. “It is instead a wholesale denial of every aspect of those orders, the emergency proclamation on which they are based and even the factual premise that the COVID-19 pandemic presents a significant risk to Maryland public health.”

This story originally appeared on WAMU.