For well over a year, a lawsuit alleging that Silfab Solar was constructing an unlawful solar panel manufacturing operation next to York County schools has been frozen in place. Now, new court orders show that even after the very appeal cited as the reason for that pause has finally been decided, but the case still has not been allowed to move forward.
The Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI) sued Silfab Solar, Inc. and York County in September 2024, arguing that the company’s massive solar panel manufacturing plant in York County was being constructed despite not being allowed by the local zoning code. In January 2025 the case was stayed by Circuit Judge Martha M. Rivers, pending the final outcome of Silfab’s separate administrative appeal over a Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) ruling.
That BZA ruling was decided May 9, 2024 and the BZA issued its order May 30, 2024. The Order was a unanimous decision reversing the Zoning Administration and Silfab’s proposed use at its property where Silfab planned to construct a heavy industrial chemical facility within a light industrial zone in proximity to schools and homes which is not allowed in the district.
On July 21, 2026, Judge William McKinnon affirmed that BZA ruling in all aspects. It was reaffirmed a second time on August 27, 2026 following a motion by Silfab asking Judge McKinnon to reconsider. At the August 26, 2027 hearing, Judge McKinnon also heard a Motion to Vacate the Stay issued by Judge Martha Rivers in January 2025 which stayed the CAGI lawsuit filed in September 2024. Unfortunately for the citizens, despite twice affirming the BZA ruling, Judge McKinnon denied CAGI’s Motion to Vacate the Stay, citing he did not have authority to change another circuit judge’s order.
And so, two years after filing the lawsuit the residents who brought this case are not allowed to move forward and have not had their day in court. This is because, even though Judge McKinnon’s ruling satisfied the very condition set for lifting the stay, his denial of the Motion to Vacate left the stay in place. CAGI is now working to get that order modified or lifted as per the conditions of the stay issued by Judge Martha M. Rivers.
What is a “Stay”?
A stay is simple, the judge typically tells both sides to stop. In this case only CAGI was stopped, however. During a stay no discovery, no hearing, and no trials are allowed to proceed during this period, and the case sits still until any condition the original judge set is satisfied. In this case, Judge Martha Rivers stayed CAGI’s lawsuit while a related zoning appeal Silfab Solar, Inc. and Exeter 7149 Logistics, LP vs. the York County Board of Zoning Appeals worked its way through the Circuit Court.
When a party wants a stay lifted, they file what is known as a “motion to alter, amend, or vacate the stay” which in effect explains that the reasons the order causing the stay should no longer have a prospective effect going forward due to change of circumstances, and citing the stay therefore is now appropriate to be removed, and let the case proceed. Courts are generally supposed to grant these motions once the original reason for the pause no longer applies, or when continuing the pause would cause real harm to one side while providing no benefit to the other.
That is exactly the position CAGI says it is in now and has been in, by the record’s own timeline, since the moment Judge McKinnon issued the ruling on July 21, 2026 that satisfied the condition Judge Rivers cited for imposing the stay.
Why Hasn’t the Stay Been Lifted?
According to CAGI’s own account of the record, CAGI’s lawsuit filed on September 19, 2024. Judge Martha M. Rivers issued a stay of the lawsuit on January 29, 2025, after a hearing on December 27, 2024, of both a motion to dismiss Silfab’s appeal of the BZA and CAGI’S lawsuit. CAGI motioned Judge Rivers to reconsider the stay twice. The language of those three Stay orders are at the center of the current dispute. The later order technically denies CAGI’s request to lift the stay under Rule 60(b)(5) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, because Rule 60 only deals with “final orders”. That rule allows a court to undo an order when it’s “no longer equitable” to enforce it, or the order should no longer have prospective effect. Provided, Judge Rivers stated that her order was not final and that she did not retain exclusive jurisdiction. Judge McKinnon based his reasoning not to vacate the stay, solely on the language of “with finality” in Judge Rivers’ first order of January 29, 2025 by stating that “finality” could mean the Supreme Court. But that first order states “…with finality in the administrative action…” CAGI argues that Judge McKinnon reached that finality by affirming the BZA in all respects, and that Silfab’s right to appeal to a higher court is now a judicial appeal (not administrative action). CAGI got clarification on this issue from Judge Rivers in her subsequent orders, but that language was apparently overlooked.
Buried in Judge Rivers’ third order, however, is a sentence that CAGI’s attorneys say provides that clarification:
The court clarifies that plaintiff may file a motion based upon subsequent events in the litigation to be heard before the presiding judge in York County. This judge does not retain exclusive jurisdiction. (Citizens Alliance For Government Integrity Nonprofit v. Silfab Solar Inc. et al., No. 2024-CP-46-03532 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., York Cnty., Sept. 30, 2025) (Rivers, J.)
CAGI’s position is that it faithfully and in good faith followed the orders of Judge Rivers by filing a motion to the presiding judge in York County, Judge William A. McKinnon. She did not say to file a motion in the court that reached finality, which could be a higher court. It appears that Judge Rivers knew that finality in the administrative action would be reached in York County Circuit Court. Judge McKinnon reached that finality of an administrative dispute by affirming the BZA decision on July 21, 2026. CAGI says that means the stay should be vacated, and if not the order should be permitted to be amended.
For residents who have already waited almost two years, during which time this disputed development completed construction, was issued an operating certificate, and is now in operation unlawfully next to their homes and their children’s schools and has leaked chemicals into the surrounding area, the continued stay enforcement is more than an impediment affecting the status quo. It is an unnecessary, prejudicial, and denial of citizens’ rights to be heard or have equal protection under the law. (If you want to read more about the issues Silfab creates, read this article on their chemical spills here: https://www.scpif.org/chemical-spills-schools-closed-citizen-suit-finally-gets-court-date-after-waiting-two-years-ag-wilson-demands-answers-from-york-county-officials/)
CAGI needed the BZA Appeal to be resolved and that is exactly what happened when Judge McKinnon affirmed the BZA ruling in all respects. Now, the only path forward for CAGI is to get the presiding judge in York County, Judge McKinnon, or an appellate judge to issue an order vacating the stay on that basis. Which judge signs that order does not matter, what matters is that a judge lifts the stay because Judge McKinnon’s order satisfied the condition within the original stay order on July 21, 2026.
The Depth of This Legal Issue
South Carolina courts generally follow what is known as the Enoree rule which is where one circuit judge shouldn’t casually overrule or second-guess another circuit judge’s prior order in the same case. It’s a rule about respect between judges and keeping cases from being re-litigated every time a new judge rotates into a county.
CAGI’s attorneys argue this rule doesn’t block them because, as Judge Rivers said in her own order, that she did not retain exclusive jurisdiction over the case. That phrase matters, it means she is not claiming to be the only judge in York County allowed to touch this case going forward. CAGI’s filings also point to an exception coming from Rice v. Doe where the court held that a later judge could act on a prior order when new facts arise or the basis for that order has been removed. CAGI argues that’s precisely the situation now, the BZA appeal that justified the stay has been decided. So, a new motion isn’t an attack on Judge Rivers’ order, it is simply asking the court to apply the language of Judge River’s orders against the backdrop of newly developed facts as they now stand where there have been two chemical spills and ongoing chemical operations in proximity to schools and homes.
Whether a York County judge ultimately agrees with that reading is the question, and is largely a matter of judicial discretion under the law that be litigated all over again despite the facts not being disputed. Silfab and York County are arguing that the BZA appeal is still pending, now in a higher court, e.g., not final. But, nobody is arguing that Judge McKinnon didn’t affirm the BZA. The only thing impeding standing between CAGI and the courtroom is procedure and judicial discretion. CAGI says it isn’t asking any judge to overturn anything, only to acknowledge that the box Judge Rivers herself created has now been checked. This simple acknowledgment has been the one thing the court has been unwilling to simply state outright and has unnecessarily prolonged this situation that needs to be resolved.
The Zoning Dispute Underneath It All
If you strip away the procedural fight, CAGI’s underlying claim is straightforward; the court’s July 21, 2026 order should prohibit Silfab’s operation of a heavy industrial chemical manufacturing facility for solar panel and solar cell, in a zone that only allows light industrial activity and facilities. CAGI points to an EPA inspection report describing Silfab’s manufacturing process and argues it matches the zoning code’s own definition of chemical manufacturing and therefore should not operate in the zone it is currently in.
Importantly, CAGI notes the BZA never rewrote the zoning law, it only interpreted it. Even if the BZA’s interpretation is reversed, CAGI argues that doesn’t retroactively legalize a use its own reading of the ordinance says was never allowed in the first place.
CAGI also raises a state-versus-local authority argument. CAGI contends a York County zoning ordinance limiting the zoning administrator’s authority (Section 155.972(C)) cannot override a South Carolina state statute (S.C. Code § 6-29-830(B)) that CAGI says was written to protect neighboring property owners. CAGI points out that no party, not York County or Silfab, ever actually filed a motion to reconsider the BZA ruling itself. To CAGI this means that construction permits should have never been issued by York County Planning and Zoning. Yet, Silfab was allowed to construct, and is now in full operation, all while the BZA ruling was standing law. Now that the BZA has been judicially affirmed, Silfab operations are certainly illegal. The burden to change this is on Silfab, not the citizens, and Silfab nor York County can simply ignore Judge McKinnon’s order affirming the BZA.
Why Does the Timing Matter So Much Now?
The lawsuit was originally filed before any construction permits were issued in the wake of the BZA ruling as far back as May 9, 2024. Since then, according to CAGI, every follow-up legal challenge attempting to pause the project has been denied or dismissed, and the plant is now operating unlawfully by CAGI’s account, near residential neighborhoods and schools.
CAGI’s filings frame this as more than a procedural technicality. “Blocking citizens from a day in court to present evidence that the use is unlawful…is unconstitutional,” the group argues, adding that health and safety considerations should be central to how courts weigh delay. The group also notes that neither Silfab nor York County has pursued the administrative fixes available to them. Some of those fixes include Silfab requesting a formal zoning change; the County could pursue a text amendment to its ordinance. Either of these fixes would require multiple public council readings, including at least one open public hearing. Until one of those paths is taken, CAGI argues, the burden of uncertainty is falling on residents who have already exhausted every administrative option available to them.
Where the Case Stands
As of the January 29, 2025 order, the underlying lawsuit remains stayed. Judge Rivers denied CAGI’s motion technically on the ground that her own stay order “wasn’t the kind of “final” order Rule 60(b)(5) is built to resolve. Judge Rivers did this, however, while also confirming that if the reason for the stay no longer applies, another York County judge is free to reconsider upon a showing of change of conditions. What the order did not do is resolve whether the stay should now be lifted, that determination still must come from the presiding judge in York County, based on the fact that Judge McKinnon’s affirming of the BZA ruling has already satisfied the condition for lifting the stay upon CAGI.
That leaves CAGI exactly where it was two years ago, on the outside of the courtroom waiting for permission to be heard. The plant is now running near neighborhoods and schools, creating a huge risk for the community and CAGI is now looking for the presiding judge in York County to lift the stay in light of Judge McKinnon’s affirming of the BZA ruling.
For a group that has spent three years working entirely inside the system and exhausting the administrative procedures available to them, it is extremely frustrating to see Silfab and York County not bother to exhaust their administrative remedies. CAGI’s attorneys are preparing the next motion and the question their filing is coming back to, is a simple one. If the reason for the delay is gone, why does the delay remain and whose interest does another few months of silence serve?
As of this week, a solution to this problem seems still difficult to reach. York County Council held a meeting on Tuesday, September 8th, where the BZA affirmation was discussed but they did not issue a public statement following the meeting. It is clear that York County Council does not want to talk about this issue and are continuing their trend of discounting citizens’ concerns. This fight for a safer community has been a long and tiresome one, but CAGI will continue fighting for the people of Fort Mill.