
Hill County
Texas county south of Dallas, centred on Hillsboro and governed by its commissioners court.
On 4 June, Hill County rescinded its data-centre moratorium after RCM Hill sued over the proposed 1,235 MW Project Aquila campus.
Last refreshed: 24 September 2026 · Appears in 1 active topic
Why did a $100m lawsuit make a Texas county drop its data-centre pause?
Timeline for Hill County
Mentioned in: Loudoun drafts a pause on data centres
Data Centres: Boom and BacklashMentioned in: New Mexico vetoes Jupiter gas pipeline
Data Centres: Boom and BacklashMentioned in: Santa Fe drops the bar to 1 MW
Data Centres: Boom and BacklashMentioned in: Indiana freezes its 12th county on AI
Data Centres: Boom and BacklashVoted unanimously to rescind its data-centre development moratorium to limit taxpayer liability
Data Centres: Boom and Backlash: Hill County folds, lawsuit lives onBackground
Hill County is a Texas county whose data-centre policy became a test of the limited land-use powers held by counties rather than cities. Its relevance rests on the legal exposure created when a county pauses a major project without clear statutory authority.
The county's May 2026 moratorium targeted RCM Hill LLC's proposed 1,235 MW Project Aquila campus. RCM Hill responded with a federal taking claim, seeking $100m on 28 May.
The rescission on 4 June made Hill County a reference point for local governments considering data-centre restrictions. The episode shows that a county's role is constrained by the authority Texas law gives it, while developers can challenge a freeze through property-rights claims.
Hill County rescinds its pause
On 28 May, developer RCM Hill LLC sued Hill County for $100m after the county paused its proposed 1,235 MW Project Aquila campus. The county judge and county attorney had said before the 3-2 vote that the moratorium was likely unlawful.
On 4 June, Hill County rescinded the moratorium seven days after the lawsuit began. The reversal ended the county's immediate restriction on Project Aquila before a court hearing, although the event record then described the damages claim as active.