CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Ohio Health Department on Friday urged a federal judge to leave the state’s coronavirus stay-at-home order untouched, bucking assertions from a libertarian law firm that said the order gives business owners no way to fight if the government orders them to shut down.

The state Attorney General’s Office, which represents the Health Department and Director Dr. Amy Acton, said the lawsuit and request for a temporary restraining order filed in federal court Thursday by the owner of a Columbus bridal shop did not prove why the order should be tweaked or overturned.

The businesswoman, Tanya Rutner Hartman of Gilded Social: The Fancy Occasion Shop in Columbus, argued she should have a right to a hearing to prove why her business is “essential” and should be allowed to stay open during the pandemic. She argued that the power given to Acton is too broad and cannot be enforced, which the state says is not the case and was granted to her by the legislature to protect the public’s health.

The state’s brief, written by Assistant Attorney General Katherine Bockbrader, also said it’s unfeasible to think every shop owner could receive such a hearing. She added that this specific situation does not warrant a hearing because businesses must follow Ohio law.

“Obviously, there would be no way Ohio could offer a hearing to every non-essential business in Ohio (or even to a modest percentage of Ohio’s considerable population of business owners),” the brief states.

Chief U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley will hold a hearing Monday on the case.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law represents Hartman in the lawsuit. It is in line with a small but vocal group of right-wing protesters, lawmakers and advocates who have called on Ohio officials to relax coronavirus-related restrictions. Acton and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said the measures are necessary to ensure more people don’t contract the virus and overwhelm emergency rooms.

As of Friday, 8,858 people have tested positive for the virus, and 401 people have died.

Gilded Social’s website says the store is closed until May 1, when Acton’s stay-at-home order expires, and that employees are only available for virtual appointments. Hartman’s lawyer said his client closed the store on her own and had faced no action by local or state health officials.

However, he said he reached out to the health officials to see if there was a way to determine whether Hartman’s store fit the definition of “essential” under the order, and was told there was not a forum to do so. He claimed that the state is forcing many businesses to choose between “financial ruin or prosecution,” as a violation of the order can result in a second-degree misdemeanor criminal charge.

The order includes a list with a broad array of stores and companies that may remain open, provided the employees can stay socially distant and adhere to guidelines to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

The state wrote in its brief that Hartman and her business have been under the order for 25 days and that she has not shown why her store would undergo more harm if she abides by the order for another two weeks.

It also points out that Hartman claims the list is unclear but conceded that hers is not one of the “essential” businesses outlined in the order.

“This argument fails because Plaintiffs are not arguing that they cannot determine whether the order applies to them,” Bockbrader wrote, noting that clothing stores are not deemed essential. “Plaintiffs simply disagree with the concluion (sic) that their business is non-essential.”