Legal Update: 5 Active Cases

The effort to Move Silfab continues to advance on multiple legal fronts. Our focus remains exactly where it has always been: enforcing zoning law, correcting unlawful permitting decisions, and protecting public health and safety in Fort Mill.

Below is a current snapshot of the legal actions that are actively shaping the path forward.

Active CAGI Legal Cases

CAGI v. Silfab, Exeter & York County (2024CP4603532)This case challenges zoning violations arising from the York County Board of Zoning Appeals decision. It remains positioned to move forward following the resolution of Silfab’s appeal of the BZA ruling.

Silfab & Exeter v. York County BZA (2024CP4602641)Silfab’s appeal of the BZA’s zoning decision is pending in Circuit Court. This case goes to the core question of whether solar cell and panel manufacturing is permitted in a Light Industrial zoning district. That question remains unresolved.

Buchanan v. SCDES & Silfab (2025-000288)This case challenges state environmental permitting changes, including stack-height modifications tied to Silfab’s operations. It is pending before the South Carolina Court of Appeals and addresses critical permitting and safety issues.

More Cases Against Silfab

Bivins vs. York County (2025CP4604007)

This is an adjacent property owner's lawsuit claiming that York County did not follow the law by allowing Silfab to proceed without zoning compliance approval and by ignoring the BZA ruling. York County motioned the court to dismiss this case. A hearing was held December 16, 2025. On January 20th, the circuit court judge issued an order which "GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART" York County's motion to dismiss the case. Bivins now plans on appealing that judge's order in appellate court.

Jason Rhodes, Plaintiff,  vs Silfab Solar, Inc.; and Silfab Solar SC Inc., Defendants (2025CP4602931)

Whistleblower former employee Jason Rhoades filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against Silfab. On December 18, 2025, the court denied Silfab's motion to dismiss and ruled that the lawsuit for wrongful termination and retaliatory discharge can continue.

 Additionally, the South Carolina Attorney General has confirmed that York County Council has the authority to revoke Silfab’s permits when credible public health or safety risks exist. Zoning enforcement and public safety remain legislative responsibilities, and that authority has not been relinquished.

Together, these actions apply sustained legal pressure on zoning compliance, permitting integrity, and accountability. They are deliberate, strategic, and ongoing.

We will continue advancing each case and will share updates as hearings are scheduled, filings occur, and opportunities arise to engage the decision-makers who can act now.

For full case details and ongoing updates, visit: 🔗 MoveSilfab.com/lawsuits

Thank you for standing with us as we continue to push this effort forward. The work is active, the strategy is clear, and the objective has not changed.