Audio articles are automated for accessibility. Humans wrote and edited the story; however, this audio has not been reviewed for accuracy and may contain errors. Read more about how we use AI to increase access to our reporting.
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration can intervene in the NAACP lawsuit against Elon Musk’s xAI, but blocked the federal government’s attempt to dismiss the case.
“We are pleased the Court saw through the Department of Justice’s deeply flawed arguments, which aimed to block communities from holding xAI accountable for the harmful air pollution being pumped out by its illegal power plant,” Patrick Anderson, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, one of the organizations representing the NAACP in court, said Tuesday.
The NAACP is suing the company, now known as SpaceXAI, over its use of 69 gas turbines to power its data center in Southaven. In the suit, the organization alleges that SpaceXAI is polluting the air and violating the federal Clean Air Act. It has asked U.S. District Judge Debra Brown to prohibit the company from operating the turbines unless they go through the state permitting process.
In June, the Department of Justice filed a motion to join the lawsuit with SpaceXAI. The DOJ said it could intervene because the suit deals with a federal law, and that the company’s data center is “a matter of paramount national security.” The company’s artificial intelligence chatbot, Grok, has helped launch missiles during the conflict with Iran.
When the company first set up the turbines last year, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality told the company that it would not need air permits to operate because the turbines are “temporary” and “mobile.”
The turbines are mounted on top of trailers and can operate for up to 12 months. However, MDEQ recently allowed the company to continue operating some of the generators for an additional five months due to a delay of the permanent turbines, which have air permits.
MDEQ maintains that the temporary turbines are operating in compliance with state regulations.
The Trump administration argued that it could dismiss the case because a federal agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, enforces the Clean Air Act. Brown denied the request to dismiss the case.
“The EPA’s role as a primary enforcer of the Clean Air Act does not mean that the federal government retains complete control over all Clean Air Act litigation,” Brown wrote in court filings.
“Congress intended to allow individuals to sue even when federal and state governments may, for whatever reason, decline to enforce the Clean Air Act,” Brown wrote.
