Could the Silfab Solar dispute in York County reach the U.S. Supreme Court?
A group of York County residents fighting the controversial Silfab Solar manufacturing facility turned to the U.S. Supreme Court after South Carolina’s highest court declined to hear their case.
The nonprofit Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity filed a request last week asking the U.S. Supreme Court for more time to file a petition challenging the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision. The state’s highest court previously declined to take up the group’s lawsuit over the Fort Mill facility. If the extension is granted, the group would have until mid-May to file its petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The filing comes during heightened scrutiny for the plant, which has been the center of community opposition for years. It drew increased criticism after two chemical spills this month led the state to order Silfab to halt operations.
Last week the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services directed Silfab to immediately stop operations at the Fort Mill facility after two chemical incidents within days of each other. About 300 gallons of potassium hydroxide spilled at the plant March 3, followed by a hydrofluoric acid leak two days later, The Charlotte Observer previously reported. The incidents prompted the nearby Flint Hill Elementary School to temporarily close and prompted pushback from lawmakers and the community.
The plant has since resumed operations after it was cleared by SCDES and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The zoning dispute
Silfab’s York County solar manufacturing facility has drawn opposition from nearby residents and school officials because of its proximity to neighborhoods and Flint Hill Elementary School.
In May 2024, the York County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5-0 that solar panel manufacturing shouldn’t be permitted in light industrial districts. York County officials argued that the ruling only applied to future projects and continued issuing permits for the Silfab facility. Residents and advocacy groups have since challenged those decisions in court. The York County Council first approved a tax incentive deal for Silfab in a 4-3 vote in September 2023.
One lawsuit filed by a nearby property owner sought a court order requiring the county to issue a stop-work order and revoke Silfab’s permits, arguing the project exceeded the approved use of the property. A York County circuit court judge dismissed the case earlier this year, finding the plaintiff had not established standing.
The Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity later filed its own petition directly with the South Carolina Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene and halt further permitting tied to the project.
SC Supreme Court declines to hear case
In December, the South Carolina Supreme Court declined to take the case in its original jurisdiction. The order did not address the merits of the zoning dispute, instead deciding not to hear the petition at that level.
“We decline to entertain this matter in our original jurisdiction,” court records state.
The residents’ group is now seeking to challenge that refusal in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the filing submitted last week, the group asked Chief Justice John Roberts for a 60-day extension to prepare a petition for a writ of certiorari — the formal request asking the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision.
In the extension request filed March 5, the group’s attorney said she had been retained only two days earlier, on March 3, leaving little time to review the case record and prepare a petition before the original deadline of March 16. The filing says the group needed time for its board to meet, hire an attorney and allow the attorney to review the case before submitting a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If filed, the petition would not ask the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the zoning dispute itself. Instead, it would ask the justices to review whether the South Carolina Supreme Court should have heard the case in the first place.
The extension request is only a procedural step. Even if the Supreme Court grants the additional time and the group files its petition, the court accepts only a small fraction of cases each year.
This story was originally published March 10, 2026 at 11:48 AM.
