Courts & cases

Texas data center litigation tracker

The lawsuits over data centers and large crypto-mining facilities — noise and nuisance, water, zoning, environmental, and utility cases — each summarized in plain English and linked to the public court record. Texas cases are featured; landmark cases from other states are included for context. We track what the record says, not who ought to win.

Sources: county court dockets, CourtListener, PACER, and public court records. Curated by hand — most data-center suits are filed in state court, which no single feed indexes.

Nuisance, noise & property

3 Texas cases

FiledNuisance & property · Hood County

Seider v. MARA Holdings, Inc.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division)

Stage 1 of 8 · Filed · Related to Adair and Engle v. MARA, consolidated before Judge Reed O'Connor.

Nine property owners from four families sued MARA Holdings, formerly Marathon Digital, in federal court over the Granbury bitcoin mine, alleging its industrial cooling fans run around the clock and produce noise, vibration, and low-frequency sound that penetrate their homes. Their properties sit between roughly 0.01 and 0.89 miles from the facility. The complaint asserts private nuisance, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and says the plaintiffs have lost the use and enjoyment of their land and allege diminished property values. It notes two earlier related suits — Adair and Engle — already consolidated before the same judge.

Why it matters: Filed in May 2026, it is the newest wave in the Granbury litigation — a sign the dispute keeps drawing in more landowners rather than winding down.

Ruined Property Value

See where it stands Complaint filed · May 1, 2026

AnsweredNuisance & property · Hood County

Adair v. Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division)

Stage 2 of 8 · Answer · Removed from state court and consolidated with Engle v. MARA Holdings before Judge Reed O'Connor.

Twenty-three property owners near Granbury sued Marathon Digital Holdings and a site manager over the bitcoin mine, alleging its industrial cooling fans run around the clock and produce noise, vibration, and low-frequency sound that carry into their homes. The suit claims those conditions substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of their land; the plaintiffs allege health effects and diminished property values. Originally filed in Hood County District Court, the case was removed to federal court and consolidated with a related suit, Engle v. MARA Holdings, before the same judge.

Why it matters: It is the largest of the Granbury nuisance suits and the one that pulled the fight into federal court — a bellwether for whether neighbors can win damages and an injunction against a data-center-scale operation.

Ruined Property Value

See where it stands Removed to federal court; consolidated with Engle v. MARA Holdings before Judge Reed O'Connor · April 17, 2026

AnsweredNuisance & property · Hood County

Citizens Concerned About Wolf Hollow v. Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.

Hood County District Court, Texas

Stage 2 of 8 · Answer · Removed to federal court and remanded to state court; litigation ongoing.

A group of Granbury residents, represented by Earthjustice, sued Marathon Digital Holdings over its around-the-clock bitcoin-mining operation at the Wolf Hollow gas plant. The suit alleges the facility's cooling systems produce constant noise and low-frequency vibration that its members say cause health effects and interfere with the use of their homes. Because Texas counties generally lack noise-ordinance authority, the residents brought a private nuisance claim asking a court to step in.

Why it matters: It is one of the first Texas nuisance suits testing whether neighbors can force a data-center-scale facility to control its noise — a path other rural landowners are watching closely.

Ruined Property Value

See where it stands Suit filed; later removed to federal court and remanded to state court, litigation ongoing · October 7, 2024

Zoning, permitting & land use

1 Texas case

FiledZoning & permitting · Hill County

RCM Hill, LLC v. Hill County

U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (Waco Division)

Stage 1 of 8 · Filed · Hill County rescinded the moratorium (June 2026); the developer's damages claim continues.

A data-center developer, RCM Hill, sued Hill County in federal court after the county adopted a one-year moratorium on data-center construction in May 2026. The developer, which had contracted to acquire about 800 acres for a roughly 1,235-megawatt facility, calls the moratorium unlawful and a regulatory taking of its property. The suit seeks a declaration that the moratorium is void, an injunction, and compensation under the federal and Texas takings clauses. Hill County later rescinded the moratorium and replaced it with a review process, but the developer's damages claim continues.

Why it matters: It is an early test of how far a Texas county can go to pause data-center development — and a reminder that these legal fights run in both directions, not only landowner against operator.

See where it stands Hill County rescinded the moratorium and adopted a review process; the developer's damages claim continues · June 10, 2026

National landmark cases

Cases from outside Texas that are shaping how courts handle data-center harm.

FiledWater · California — Imperial County

Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC v. Imperial Irrigation District

Stage 1 of 8 · Filed

A developer planning a large AI data center in California's Imperial Valley sued the Imperial Irrigation District after the district denied its request for Colorado River water to cool the facility. The developer, which says it leased farmland it would let go dormant to offset the demand, seeks roughly 260 million gallons a year and asks the court to order the district to provide the water. The district denied the request in May 2026.

Why it matters: It is a direct court fight over whether a data center can claim scarce Colorado River water — the clearest test yet of data-center water demand against existing users.

Stolen Water

See where it stands Water district denied the water request; developer filed suit · June 15, 2026

Motions pendingEnvironmental · U.S. federal — N.D. Miss.

NAACP v. xAI, Inc.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Mississippi

Stage 4 of 8 · Motions · The U.S. Department of Justice moved to intervene and to dismiss.

The NAACP sued xAI under the Clean Air Act, alleging the company installed and ran dozens of gas turbines to power its "Colossus" AI data center without the air permits the law requires. The complaint says the turbines emit large volumes of smog-forming nitrogen oxides over nearby, largely Black neighborhoods already burdened by poor air quality. It asks the court to halt the turbines until they are permitted and controlled, and to impose civil penalties. The U.S. Department of Justice later moved to intervene, arguing the case implicates power supply for AI used by the military.

Why it matters: It is the highest-profile environmental case yet over the air pollution from powering AI data centers — a preview of the permitting and air-quality fights Texas facilities may face.

Poisoned Air

See where it stands Emergency motion for a preliminary injunction filed; DOJ moved to intervene · May 6, 2026

In discoveryWater · U.S. federal — D. Or.

Pearson v. Port of Morrow

U.S. District Court, District of Oregon (Pendleton Division)

Stage 3 of 8 · Discovery · Class certified; Amazon Data Services settled its share for $20.5M (March 2026); trial set for 2027 against the remaining defendants.

Residents of a rural Oregon groundwater area sued the Port of Morrow and several industrial and agricultural operations, alleging that nitrate-laden wastewater — including from data centers at the port — was spread on nearby farmland and contaminated drinking-water wells above federal limits. A judge certified the case as a class action. Amazon Data Services, which has run data centers in the county since 2011, agreed in March 2026 to pay $20.5 million to settle its share without admitting liability; the case continues against the remaining defendants, with trial set for 2027.

Why it matters: It is the first case in which a data-center operator has paid to resolve claims that its wastewater helped contaminate neighbors' groundwater — a concrete precedent for water-harm litigation.

Stolen Water

See where it stands Amazon Data Services settled its share for $20.5M; case continues against the remaining defendants · March 31, 2026

On appealElectricity & utility · Ohio (state supreme court appeal)

Ohio Manufacturers' Association Energy Group v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio

Supreme Court of Ohio

Stage 7 of 8 · Appeal · Appeal of the utility commission's order; briefing complete, awaiting oral argument.

An Ohio industrial-energy group is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to overturn a state-approved "data center tariff" for the utility AEP Ohio. The tariff requires large new data centers (25 megawatts and up) to pay for at least 85% of the power capacity they reserve for 12 years, even if they use less. The challengers argue the commission's approval was unlawful and rests on speculation about future demand. The commission is defending the tariff, which it approved in 2025.

Why it matters: It is the first appellate test of a data-center-specific electricity tariff — the same "who pays for the grid" fight Texas is heading into under its own new large-load rules.

See where it stands Briefing completed; awaiting oral argument · March 24, 2026

FiledNuisance & property · New Jersey (near Vineland)

Montgomery v. DataOne USA

Stage 1 of 8 · Filed

Neighbors of an AI data center near Vineland, New Jersey sued the operator over a constant low-frequency "hum" that a viral video captured carrying across surrounding farmland. The plaintiffs, who live within about a mile of the site, allege the noise from cooling and power equipment interferes with the use of their homes and, they say, has diminished their property values. Before the suit, the county health department issued a notice of violation for nighttime noise exceeding local limits.

Why it matters: It is one of the clearest out-of-state examples of a data-center noise nuisance suit — the same fact pattern now playing out in Texas.

Ruined Property Value

See where it stands County health department issued a noise notice of violation; suit filed · March 10, 2026

As of this writing, no Texas lawsuit has yet been filed alleging that a data center specifically drained a neighbor's groundwater or well — the fights so far are over noise, permitting, air, and the grid. Summaries are our own words, describe only what the filings assert, and are for general information only — not legal advice, and no defendant is described as liable before a court has ruled. Follow each link for the public record.