Wilmington v. Its Neighbors: The $4 Billion Amazon Data Center a Federal Judge Sent Back to Square One

Amazon Data Services brought Wilmington a campus it valued at $4 billion: about 471 acres along U.S. 68 in the southwest of the city, with the city citing roughly 100 permanent jobs, $8 million in annual payroll, and $25 million in infrastructure upgrades. To make it possible, the city council passed three ordinances: a rezoning of the parcel, an amendment adding data centers as a permitted land use, and a set of generator noise regulations.

The Sharps' complaint, and the amended version filed April 21 with additional residents, alleged that the city failed to give proper notice of those changes, that officials held closed-door meetings with Amazon representatives and withheld details before passing the ordinances, and that residents were denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The flashpoint was March 25, 2026: a special planning commission meeting scheduled on about two days' notice to consider materials from Amazon's site plan application, at which members of the public, including Jessica Sharp, were prohibited from speaking. The suit was filed the same day.

On July 14, the federal court ruled that all three ordinances had been adopted in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 713.12, the statute governing zoning measures, which requires 30 days of notice in a local publication and written notice to abutting property owners at least 20 days before the hearing. The city was ordered to redo the procedures for all three before acting on the site plan, and the planning commission was ordered not to prevent individuals from giving public comment and expert testimony on site plan applications. Wilmington declined to comment on pending litigation; Amazon did not respond to requests for comment.

A ruling that ordinances were passed without proper notice does not kill a project. It sends the approvals back to be passed correctly. What Wilmington did with that opportunity is the reason this case matters beyond Clinton County.

The city rescheduled its public hearing for August 20, 2026, and set a special 6 p.m. council meeting the same evening to re-pass the rezoning, the data center use ordinance, and the generator noise rules, this time as emergency measures. Under Ohio law, an emergency ordinance takes effect immediately and skips the 30 day waiting period during which citizens can gather signatures to force a referendum. The residents had been doing exactly that: a petition requiring 1,100 signatures within 30 days, with a separate ballot initiative awaiting certification by the Board of Elections. Resident Laura Struve summarized the position in local reporting: it is not easy to do a referendum, and now they could not even try.

Ohio's Supreme Court has limited emergency designations to measures addressing genuine public health or safety concerns, which sets up the next question in the case: whether a $4 billion private data center's rezoning qualifies. The plaintiffs, who reported about $50,000 in legal fees by mid-summer, are now litigating both the original approvals and the city's method of reinstating them.

Wilmington belongs with the procedural cases that have defined 2026: the Digital Gateway, killed by a defective notice; Joliet and Grayslake, where notices named projects by code; and Festus, where a development agreement was released on a Friday for a Monday vote. It is the first of those to produce a ruling, and the ruling went the residents' way.

It also belongs with Edgerton, Kansas, where a city sued its residents to stop a petition, as an example of how governments respond when the procedural playbook works. Wilmington did not sue anyone. It used the emergency clause. The effect on the referendum is the same, and the legality of that move is now in front of the same federal court. Ohio, with 53 local moratoriums and its own tariff fight at the state supreme court, is covered on our Ohio page.

If a large project near you was approved quickly and quietly, Wilmington is the playbook and the warning:

• Check the notice against the statute. Published notice for the required number of days, and a written notice to abutting owners within the required window. If either is missing, the approval is vulnerable, whatever the merits.
• Make the record of being silenced. The planning commission order exists because residents documented being barred from speaking. Ask to speak, in writing, and keep the refusal.
• File before the do-over. The Sharps sued the day of the meeting. A ruling that forces a redo is only useful if you are in court before the city fixes the paperwork.
• Prepare for the emergency clause. If your state lets emergency ordinances skip referendum, expect it to be used, and know the case law that limits it.
• Budget for it. The plaintiffs spent about $50,000 to get the July ruling. Organize the funding before you need it.

Our guide to fighting a proposed data center covers the notice and hearing rules in depth, and our deadlines guide explains why speed decides these cases. If a project near you is on this path, our free case review connects you with an independent attorney in our network who handles data center cases in your state, at no cost and with no obligation.