A state judge in Boston Wednesday denied a request from two landlords for a temporary reprieve from the moratorium on evictions in Massachusetts.

Superior Court Judge Paul D. Wilson rejected the pair’s request to halt enforcement of the moratorium, which the landlords argue is unconstitutional. Wilson also signaled how the case might conclude, writing that he did not see how the landlords would prevail based on the initial round of arguments.

“On the basis of the preliminary record before me, I cannot see my way clear to finding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merit of their claims that the Eviction Moratorium Law is ‘an unreasonable exercise of power having no actual relation to public safety, public health, or public morals,’” wrote Wilson, pointing to a case that outlines a standard for the commonwealth to exercise police power.

“Faced with a serious threat of a highly infectious and dangerous disease, and the economic dislocations caused by the resulting government orders closing businesses and mandating that citizens state at home, the legislature has now purported to exercise this broad police power by taking various measures, including restrictions on the use of private property, to protect the public health and welfare,” he added.

Lawyers for landlords Mitchell Matorin and Linda Smith have argued that the moratorium violates the state constitution’s separation of powers, denies access to the courts and amounts to the taking of real estate without just compensation.

In his 34-page ruling, Wilson explained that parties face a difficult burden when arguing that a legislature has acted unconstitutionally.

Because proceedings in the state case are incomplete, the judge did note his preliminary rejection is only a prediction.

“The future course of this case will determine if that prediction is correct,” he wrote.

Richard D. Vetstein, a lead lawyer for the landlords, said the team will appeal Wilson’s ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction.

“We weren’t necessarily surprised, based upon how the argument went,” he said, noting that he sensed skepticism from Wilson during last month’s hearing. “Overall, I think he gave a lot of deference to the legislature, probably a bit too much. We have issues with his reasoning and we’ll definitely be pursuing an appeal.”

Attorneys who helped defend the eviction law praised Wilson’s decision in a statement to WGBH News.

“We believe today’s thoughtful Superior Court order appropriately recognizes that the moratorium law plays a vital role in Massachusetts’ ongoing and comprehensive effort to defeat the spread of COVID-19 and should remain in place as long as the emergency persists,” said a joint statement from Greater Boston Legal Services, Community Legal Aid and Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. “This is especially critical in the communities hardest hit by the disease — the communities of color and low-income neighborhoods our client groups represent.”

A separate lawsuit challenging the evictions moratorium is proceeding in federal court.

Vetstein, who also works for landlords in that case, said he was encouraged by U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf’s questions regarding what might happen if he grants an injunction in that case.

“While we’re disappointed with the state court’s ruling, we’re hopeful and cautiously optimistic about the federal court,” Vetstein said. “But, again, it’s always an uphill battle to fight the constitutionality of any state law, so we’re certainly not going to count our chickens before they hatch.”

The federal case is now set to continue next Tuesday. The statewide ban on filing evictions is due to expire Oct. 17.