Temporary restraining order halts proposed Pine Island data center
A Minnesota judge issued a temporary restraining order, halting construction on a proposed 482-acre data center in Pine Island following a lawsuit by the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA). The MCEA challenged the City of Pine Island's environmental review process and its compliance with the state's data practices act. This legal action targets the Project Skyway development, involving Ryan Companies and identified client Google, which could face significant delays and costs.
A Goodhue County judge has issued a temporary restraining order, effectively halting all construction and pre-construction activities for Project Skyway, a proposed 482-acre technology and data center development in Pine Island, Minnesota. Judge Patrick M. Biren granted the order on May 22, requiring the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) to post a $2,000 security bond. Ryan Companies US, Inc., the developer, was prevented from proceeding with the project, which had planned to begin construction in July 2026 and could now face delays costing $5 million or more.
The MCEA filed a lawsuit against the City of Pine Island and Ryan Companies in October 2025, contending that the city failed to conduct an adequate environmental review for the development. The environmental group argued that the city utilized a streamlined Alternative Urban Areawide Review despite evidence suggesting the project was specifically designed for a single Fortune 200 client, later identified as Google in February 2026. MCEA asserted that a more rigorous environmental review process should have been employed for such a large and specific undertaking, highlighting concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and noise impacts.
Furthermore, the judge found that the City of Pine Island failed to fully comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). MCEA had requested documents in October 2025 but was unable to access information linked within emails disclosed by the city, and the city did not provide the legally required written explanation for withholding documents. The city had previously approved the final environmental review in September 2025 and issued a conditional use permit for the project, leading to a separate MCEA lawsuit. The temporary restraining order will remain in effect as the case proceeds, with Judge Biren denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment and noting MCEA's likelihood of success on the merits of their environmental review challenge.