A Superior Court Judge handed the litigants challenging Lowell’s Data Center and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) a victory today, issuing a “stay” against the Air Permit issued the Markley Group by the DEP.

In his ruling, Justice C. William Barrett ruled in favor of the plaintiffs’ motion, “but only with respect to the four backup diesel generators that have not yet been installed.”

He went on to write that “Markley is permitted to operate the four generators it installed previously, subject to the special conditions the Air Permit imposes.” (Link to today’s full ruling)

In all, Markley had previously received Air Permits for 19-backup generators. They then applied for eight more in an effort to bring the total to 27. It is these most recent generators Judge Barrett’s ruling today touches upon.

The data center’s expansion has been at the heart of a contentious political debate in the Mill City, one that mirrors the national battle over these facilities and their rapid expansion due to the demands of Artificial Intelligence.

Up to this point, the group of Lowell citizens fighting Markley had been unsuccessful in derailing the data center’s plans to grow their operation, despite vocal opposition from elected officials, residents and activist groups.

In a ruling issued July 10, 2026, DEP Commissioner Bonnie Heiple denied the citizen group’s appeal of an earlier agency ruling that upheld the granting of Air Permits. In that decision, Heiple wrote the “Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the Final Decision was based on a finding of fact or ruling of law that was clearly erroneous, and they have otherwise renewed claims or arguments that were previously raised, considered and denied.” (Link to Heiple’s July ruling)

In issuing today’s stay, however, Judge Barrett ruled that potential harms to the plaintiffs, “far outweigh any harm to Markley, particularly where Markley does not utilize all of the backup generators they currently have. Markley also has not shown that it would be unable to function if the court were to preserve the status quo,” he wrote.