By admin 
The S.C. Court of Appeals has agreed to fast track hearing a case of a Fort Mill landowner near the Silfab plant who sued York County over permitting the plant to open.
Read more DNA, prior testimony? Friday’s Alex Murdaugh hearing to air swarm of contested issues
The decision, made late Tuesday and has no timeline, comes as three other civil lawsuits involving Silfab Solar and its controversial site near schools and homes close to the Charlotte line are set for Aug. 26 in York County civil court.
In one of those lawsuits, members of the public from Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity associated with the “Move Silfab” protest movement against the Silfab site for years get their first court hearing against both Silfab and York County.
Silfab Solar, which opened in fall 2025, is a plant for cell and solar panel manufacturing. Officials with the county and the company said the plant brings a $150 million investment and as many as 800 jobs. But its location, which is off U.S. 21 near Carowinds Boulevard, by two schools and close to hundreds of homes, drew backlash from people who said the plant‘s chemical use is dangerous for the area and that the county’s zoning forbids the plant at the site.
Protesters at county council meetings have said they have waited years for a judge to hear the people’s concerns over the plant location, the chemicals used, and the potential for a health crisis.
“It (Aug. 26) is a big day for the community that has come together,” said CAGI president Andy Lytle.
In another of those lawsuits, a judge on July 21 ruled against Silfab and affirmed a 2024 York County Board of Zoning Appeals decision that solar panel manufacturing is not allowed in a light-industrial-zoned area. Silfab has asked that judge to reconsider and will be heard Aug. 26.
As these cases churn through the York County and South Carolina courts, the Silfab plant remains open despite public and political controversy over the plant’s location. Silfab has told York County officials it is doing everything it can to operate safely, but those opposed to the plant remain steadfast in seeking the county or courts to move the plant once and for all.
Two schools remain open next to Silfab. Flint Hill Elementary, which the Fort Mill school district closed for two days in March after Silfab had chemical leaks at the site, and Flint Hill Middle. The new middle school opened last week after the elementary school opened last year in fast-growing Fort Mill.
Some Fort Mill residents and lawmakers have pushed for Silfab’s permits to be revoked after the July 21 ruling, but that has not happened.
Here’s a rundown on the cases set for coming days.
The appeals case: Hurry up and wait
S.C. Circuit Judge G.D. Morgan Jr. ruled in January against landowner Dennis Bivens in his lawsuit alleging that York County acted improperly in allowing the plant there through permits and zoning decisions. Silfab and York County, in statements, lauded the ruling.
Read more ‘Ridiculous.’ Governor critical of SC agency plan to charge man $2.4M for records
Through his lawyer, Cam Halford, Bivens appealed.
But then came the July 21 ruling by Judge Bill McKinnon in the separate lawsuit upholding the 2024 board of zoning appeals decision. On July 28, Halford filed a request for an expedited appeal in the Bivens case against York County, claiming “changing circumstances” from the McKinnon order, which said the Silfab zoning is wrong, and ongoing threats to public safety from the plant.
“There now exist imminent and specific risk of harm in Fort Mill community caused by Silfab Solar Inc. operations,” the request for expedited hearing stated.
An appeals court win for Bivens would send the case back to a circuit judge.
Halford told The Herald Wednesday: “We are appreciative that the Court of Appeals has approved our motion to fast-track a hearing of this case, and are hopeful the court will remand to the circuit court.”
York County’s lawyers balked in court filings. The county’s attorneys said the Bivens lawsuit is against York County, not Silfab. The county’s attorneys say the July 21 McKinnon order has nothing to do with the Bivens landowner suit, but the request for a faster appeal is a “true effort to litigate grievances against Silfab.”
The Herald asked York County’s public information office by e-mail for comment about the appeals court decision to sped up the process, but the office had not yet responded as of Wednesday afternoon.
A lawyer for Silfab told The Herald the appeals case is against York County, not Silfab.
Other lawsuits: Zoning, whisteblower, and the public’s first time in court
Three lawsuits involving Silfab are on the docket for Judge McKinnon to hear on Aug. 26.
1) Silfab has filed court documents saying it wants McKinnon to reconsider his July 21 ruling upholding the zoning appeals board’s 2024 decision. In statements, Silfab has said the zoning board lawsuit does not affect its Fort Mill plant because the plant was underway before the 2024 zoning board decision. Silfab has already said it will appeal if McKinnon doesn’t reconsider.
2) CAGI filed a lawsuit against Silfab and York County in 2024, but yet another judge issued a stay in that case last year because the zoning board appeals decision had not been heard in court. But after the July 21 Judge McKinnon ruling, CAGI asked for a hearing to remove that stay so its case against both the county and Silfab can proceed.
3) Silfab has asked to amend its response to a whistleblower lawsuit filed against it by a former employee. The employee claimed he was fired in retaliation for reporting unsafe working conditions. Silfab has denied that claim and wants to countersue, court filings show. That case docket shows hearings scheduled for Aug. 26 and another in September.
Read more Ex-federal corrections officer indicted in $60k bribery scheme, prosecutors say