Judge Hears Oral Arguments in Franklin Data Center Lawsuit, Takes Motions Under Advisement

FRANKLIN, Ky. (WNKY) — Attorneys for all sides appeared in Simpson County Circuit Court Monday as a judge heard oral arguments in the lawsuit challenging the proposed TenKey data center in Franklin.

The hearing did not address the merits of the proposed development. Instead, attorneys argued whether Franklin Citizens for Responsible Development has the legal standing to challenge the Franklin Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval of TenKey’s preliminary development plan.

Attorney Gregory Dutton, representing TenKey, argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because a 2025 amendment to Kentucky law requires anyone appealing a planning decision to own property in the same zoning district as the project.

“The only reason that standing is not available to these particular plaintiffs in this case is that 2025 amendment,” Dutton said.

Dutton argued lawmakers intentionally narrowed who can appeal zoning decisions.

“The legislature intentionally chose to narrow what it is that the appeal process is if you’re trying to appeal a zoning decision,” he said.

Attorney F. Keith Brown, representing the Franklin Planning and Zoning Commission, echoed TenKey’s arguments while also questioning whether the citizens group has standing because it was formed after the commission approved the preliminary development plan.

“This entity was not in existence. We don’t think it has the right to come in and file an appeal at a later date,” Brown said.

Brown also argued the plaintiffs had not demonstrated the type of injury required to establish standing.

Attorneys for Franklin Citizens for Responsible Development argued the 2025 amendment is unconstitutional because it limits access to the courts based on zoning classifications rather than whether someone may actually be harmed by a project.

“The harm is the harm regardless of how your property’s characterized in the zone,” attorney Timothy Mayer said.

Mayer argued the amendment violates equal protection under the Kentucky Constitution and unfairly prevents nearby property owners from challenging government decisions.

“It’s a new law that’s untested, and for the reasons that we’ve explained, the provisions just don’t make any sense,” Mayer said.

Throughout the nearly two-hour hearing, the judge questioned attorneys from all sides about the 2025 amendment, the Planning Commission’s preliminary approval process and whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

No ruling was issued Monday. The judge said he will continue reviewing the briefs and applicable case law before issuing a written decision on the motions to dismiss, which will determine whether the lawsuit can move forward.