The Ohio Supreme Court on Sept. 18 blocked a proposed ballot measure that could have imposed new operating restrictions and citizen lawsuits on Amazon Web Services' planned $4-billion data center campus in Wilmington, about 35 miles southeast of Dayton. The court denied a request by petitioners Quintin Koger Kidd and Susan Croutwater to require the Clinton County Board of Elections to place their proposed ordinance on the Nov. 3 ballot. The ruling matters because it removes one immediate procedural threat to the project, but it does not clear the path for construction: a separate federal court order still bars Wilmington's Planning Commission from approving, conditionally approving, or denying AWS's site plan until city council ratifies, replaces, or reenacts three ordinances involving generator noise, data centers as a permitted use, and rezoning of the project site.
The blocked ordinance would have regulated noise, lighting, air emissions, generator testing, water use and discharge, and heat generation. It also would have given certain nearby residents a "private right of action" to enforce those requirements against data center owners and operators. The court found that the citizen-enforcement provision exceeded Wilmington's authority, stating: "The proposed ordinance at issue here purports to create a new cause of action and therefore is not within the municipality's power to enact." Under the proposal, residents could have sought injunctions suspending data center operations, and courts could have imposed penalties of up to $10,000 per day, suspended a certificate of occupancy, or revoked conditional use of the property. Successful plaintiffs could also have recovered attorney and expert fees.
The factual record comes from a single Engineering News-Record article read in full, which draws on court filings, a Clinton County Port Authority economic-development presentation, and site-plan documents from Bohler, AWS's civil engineering agent. AWS proposes a nine-building hyperscale campus on a 471-acre site annexed into Wilmington and zoned Light Industrial in August 2025. The nine principal buildings would total about 1.92 million sq ft, with individual buildings ranging from approximately 163,000 sq ft to 220,000 sq ft. A December 2025 presentation puts Amazon Data Services' planned private investment at $4 billion, with at least 100 permanent jobs and an $8-million annual payroll once operational. AWS anticipates construction extending more than five years and generating more than 200 construction jobs. The campus is designed with 252 Tier 4 backup generators in acoustic enclosures, and AWS told Wilmington each generator would operate an average of about 10 hours annually for testing, maintenance, and emergencies.
For the data center sector, the ruling illustrates how local opposition is increasingly testing the legal boundaries of municipal authority over hyperscale projects. The court's reasoning—that a municipality cannot create a new private cause of action—could shape how other Ohio communities draft citizen-led restrictions on data center operations. The project's infrastructure commitments also show the scale of public-works investment tied to these campuses: AWS is expected to build and pay for at least $25 million in public infrastructure, including 3.5 miles of trunk sewer, 2.5 miles of water main, a 1-million-gallon water tower, and road improvements to US 68 and State Route 730 to city and Ohio Department of Transportation standards. The offsite sanitary system had reached 30% design by March, with calculations covering full buildout of the AWS campus.
The evidence has clear limitations. AWS and the Clinton County Port Authority did not immediately respond to ENR questions about the project's current approval and construction status, whether the Supreme Court ruling affects its schedule, and what work can proceed while the separate litigation remains pending. The federal order, entered by agreement between Wilmington and the plaintiffs on July 14, requires 14 days' advance notice before the Planning Commission acts on the site plan and allows participants to present evidence and question opposing witnesses. Amazon Data Services, which U.S. District Judge Jeffery Hopkins allowed to intervene in June, did not object to that order but reserved its rights regarding the ordinances and its pending site-plan application. What to watch next is whether Wilmington's city council moves to ratify, replace, or reenact the three contested ordinances, and whether any further state or federal rulings alter the project's timeline.