DATACENTERS vladeck doj citizen suits xai
page 3 / 8
That claim, if accepted, would rewrite the enforcement architecture of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, RCRA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and every other statute that contains a citizen-suit provision. It is a change not just in one case or one area of law, but in the basic relationship between the government, private industry, and the communities that have relied on these provisions as a last resort for half a century.
As always, let’s start with the facts: On April 14, the NAACP and its Mississippi State Conference sued x.AI Corp. and its wholly owned subsidiary, MZX Tech LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, where the case landed before Chief Judge Debra Brown. The complaint is not exotic. It alleges that xAI built and is operating dozens of natural-gas turbines—27 when the suit was filed, and by the plaintiffs’ more recent count as many as 60—to power its “Colossus 2” data center in Southaven, just across the state line from Memphis, without ever obtaining the permits the Clean Air Act requires before such a facility may be built or run. By skipping the permitting process, the plaintiffs argue, xAI also evaded the “best available control technology” determination that federal law demands of major new pollution sources. The turbines, the complaint contends, are likely the single largest industrial source of nitrogen oxides in the greater Memphis area—pollution that falls hardest on a surrounding population that is disproportionately Black.
The plaintiffs’ cause of action is the Clean Air Act’s citizen-suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7604, under which the plaintiffs sent the statutorily required notice of intent to sue in February before filing in April. The relief they seek is similarly conventional: an injunction barring continued operation of the turbines until xAI obtains the necessary permits and pollution controls, civil penalties of up to roughly $124,000 per day of violation payable to the Department of the Treasury, and measures to offset the public-health harm in the interim. xAI’s defense, for its part, leans on a letter from Mississippi regulators telling the company that its “temporary” and “mobile” turbines did not require a permit at all—a reading of the law the plaintiffs insist is a loophole that simply does not exist. One need not be an environmental lawyer to understand that a state can’t give a private party permission to violate federal law.
Enter the United States.
On June 15, DOJ filed a 33-page motion not to weigh in as a friend of the court, but to intervene in the case—and, having intervened, to have the entire suit dismissed with prejudice. DOJ offered two justifications, and it is worth separating them, because they operate at very different levels. The first is national security. Supported by a sworn declaration from Cameron Stanley, the Pentagon’s chief digital and artificial-intelligence officer, the government argues that xAI’s Grok “Gov” model (the same one that appears to be responsible for the strike on an Iranian school) is one of only four AI systems that support mission-critical operations on classified networks, and that forcing the turbines offline would therefore “directly threaten ongoing national security interests.” ENRD wrapped this in the language of economic and energy security too, casting the NAACP’s suit as a threat to “the largest private investment in Mississippi’s history,” a claim that shouldn’t matter, of course, if that investment is responsible for blatant, ongoing violations of federal law.
But it’s the second justification that has turned this case into a bellwether: DOJ also argues that the Clean Air Act gives the United States a freestanding “right of dismissal”—that it may intervene in a citizen suit at any time and, once in, is “entitled to dismiss the entire action.” And it dresses this claim up in constitutional clothing: the “best interpretation” of the statute, the government says, is the one that “ensures the Executive Branch retains its primacy over the enforcement of federal law,” which is “also necessary to avoid grave constitutional problems with the statute’s citizen-suit provisions” under Article II. xAI has gone further still, arguing outright that the citizen-suit provision is unconstitutional because it vests federal law-enforcement power outside of the executive branch.
All of this is novel and troubling—and the two are closely connected.
As Erika Kranz of Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program has documented, this is the first time the United States has intervened in a citizen suit against a private defendant for the purpose of arguing that the suit must be thrown out. And Kranz would know; like Thoms, she’s a former ENRD lawyer. History aside, it’s easy to see why this move is novel: the statute bars citizen suits only when the government “has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil action.” In other words, the entire structure presupposes that the government displaces private enforcement only by enforcing, not by choosing to do nothing and then slamming the courthouse door behind it. What DOJ is asserting is the mirror image of that design. It is not saying “we’ll take it from here.” It is saying that because it has chosen to do nothing, and because Mississippi has chosen to do nothing, the people breathing the air are required to do nothing, too.