The Prince William Digital Gateway lawsuit ended with Virginia courts voiding the December 2023 rezoning that would have cleared the way for up to 37 data centers next to Manassas National Battlefield Park. A Prince William County Circuit Court judge ruled in August 2025 that the county failed to properly notify the public before the Board of Supervisors voted, and the Virginia Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed that ruling in March 2026. Since then, the county has stopped defending the project, one of the two developers has walked away, and only QTS Realty Trust is still fighting, with a discretionary appeal pending before the Virginia Supreme Court.
What the Rezoning Would Have Allowed
The Digital Gateway covered roughly 2,100 acres along Pageland Lane in Gainesville, adjacent to the Manassas National Battlefield Park. At full buildout, the corridor would have held over 22 million square feet of data center space, 14 electric substations, and hundreds of diesel backup generators.1WTOP. Prince William Co. Withdraws From Digital Gateway Lawsuit2E&E News. Developers Seek to Revive Data Center Next to Virginia Battlefield QTS held more than 900 acres and planned 10 million square feet of capacity over 10 to 14 years; Compass Datacenters planned another 11.55 million square feet on separate parcels.3DLA Piper. DLA Piper Advises QTS Data Centers on Prince William Digital Gateway Proposal and Rezoning Efforts4Data Center Dynamics. Compass Pulls Out of PW Digital Gateway Project County finance officials pegged the investment at $24.7 billion, with about $400 million in annual tax revenue.5Data Center Frontier. PW Digital Gateway Data Center Developers Share Vision, Address Community Concerns
The Board of County Supervisors approved three rezoning ordinances (Digital Gateway North, Digital Gateway South, and the Compass campus) by a 4-3 vote on December 13, 2023, after a public hearing that ran 27 hours and drew more than 400 speakers.3DLA Piper. DLA Piper Advises QTS Data Centers on Prince William Digital Gateway Proposal and Rezoning Efforts County planning staff had recommended denial.6Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks. Coalition Joins Letter in Opposition to Prince William Digital Gateway Rezoning
Why the Courts Voided the Rezoning
The case turned on a public notice failure that the county’s own attorney flagged before the vote. State law requires localities to advertise land use hearings once a week for two successive weeks, with at least six days between publications. Prince William’s notices were scheduled to run in The Washington Post on November 28 and December 5, 2023. They did not run on those dates. The clerk to the Board, Andrea Madden, testified that she submitted the advertisement but did not respond to the newspaper’s request to confirm publication.7Prince William Times. Public Notice at Issue as Trial Challenging the PW Digital Gateway Begins The ads eventually appeared on December 2, 5, and 9, leaving only three days between the last ad and the December 12 hearing.8InsideNoVA. Digital Gateway Opponents Granted Another Win at Prince William Courthouse
On November 30, County Attorney Michelle Robl emailed the Board warning that the notices did not meet legal requirements and recommending that the hearing be re-advertised. She acknowledged that Virginia courts had been trending toward stricter enforcement of procedural rules in land use cases. The developers indicated a willingness to accept the litigation risk, and the Board voted anyway.9Bean Kinney. Data Center Infrastructure Under Siege: Lessons From Virginia’s Digital Gateway Decision
Two lawsuits followed. The Oak Valley Homeowners Association and 12 residents sued the Board along with the developers’ entities H&H Capital Acquisitions (Compass) and GW Acquisition Co. (QTS).10InsideNoVA. Prince William County Joins Digital Gateway Developers’ Motions to Keep the Project Moving Separately, the American Battlefield Trust and nine residents filed Katy Burke et al. v. Board of County Supervisors in January 2024.11American Battlefield Trust. Stop Prince William Digital Gateway and Protect Manassas Battlefield
On August 7, 2025, Circuit Court Judge Kimberly Irving ruled all three rezoning ordinances void, finding the county had violated Virginia Code § 15.2-2204 and its own zoning ordinance.12Prince William Times. Judge Overturns Prince William Digital Gateway She identified two defects. The December 9 ad ran only three days before the hearing, short of the required six-day gap. And the rezoning documents referenced in the advertisements were not available for public review until December 7, after the first ad had already run, even though Virginia law requires that materials advertised “by reference” be examinable at the locations named in the notice.9Bean Kinney. Data Center Infrastructure Under Siege: Lessons From Virginia’s Digital Gateway Decision
Judge Irving rejected the county’s argument that a “safe harbor” provision shielding localities when a newspaper fails to publish through no fault of government applied here. The clerk’s failure to confirm publication with the Post was the county’s fault, not the newspaper’s. The court declared the rezonings void ab initio, treating them as though they had never been enacted.12Prince William Times. Judge Overturns Prince William Digital Gateway
The Court of Appeals Affirmed
The county and both developers appealed. The Virginia Court of Appeals consolidated the Oak Valley and Burke cases and heard oral arguments on February 24, 2026, in Arlington.13InsideNoVA. What’s Next for the Ongoing Legal Challenges Against the Digital Gateway
On March 31, 2026, a unanimous three-judge panel authored by Judge Stuart A. Raphael, joined by Judges Beales and Bernhard, affirmed the circuit court in full.14Virginia Business. Virginia Appeals Court Upholds Block on Prince William Digital Gateway Project The panel agreed the advertising violated both Virginia Code § 15.2-2204(A) and Prince William County Zoning Ordinance § 32-700.60, and that the safe harbor did not apply because the county, not the newspaper, was at fault.15Coalition to Protect PWC. Digital Gateway Lawsuit Appellate Court Opinion
The court also rejected the county’s argument that plaintiffs who attended the 27-hour hearing had “actual notice” and waived their right to challenge the ads. The waiver provision in § 15.2-2204(B), the panel held, does not excuse advertising deficiencies under subsection A for plaintiffs with standing. The panel did narrow one point of the trial ruling, holding that a single plaintiff cannot challenge all three rezonings based on proximity to only one site, but concluded the record showed individual Oak Valley plaintiffs had standing on each rezoning independently. That made the correction academic and rendered the Burke plaintiffs’ need for further relief moot, effectively ending both cases at the appellate level.15Coalition to Protect PWC. Digital Gateway Lawsuit Appellate Court Opinion
The County and Compass Pulled Out
The appellate loss reshaped the project’s coalition within two weeks. On April 14, 2026, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted unanimously to withdraw from the lawsuit and stop defending the rezoning on appeal.16InsideNoVA. Prince William County Withdraws From Digital Gateway Lawsuit Board Chair Deshundra Jefferson, elected in 2023 on a platform opposing the project, said she had been “adamantly against the rezoning” during her campaign and was “even more so now.”17Prince William Times. Jefferson Remains Adamantly Against the Digital Gateway By that point, the county had spent $1.72 million defending the project.
On April 29, 2026, Compass Datacenters announced it was abandoning the project. Company president AJ Byers said “recent legal actions and compounding regulatory hurdles have effectively closed a viable path forward” after five years of development effort in the county.18Compass Datacenters. Digital Gateway Project
QTS’s Appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court
QTS filed its notice of appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court on April 30, 2026, with less than three hours before the deadline. Its petition argues that the Court of Appeals committed “several errors of law” and carried out an “unprecedented nullification” of three zoning amendments based on “highly technical notice provisions that harmed no one,” contending that plaintiffs were fully aware of the rezonings and suffered no actual harm from any notice defect.19Prince William Times. QTS Files 11th-Hour Appeal to Keep the Prince William Digital Gateway Alive
Plaintiffs’ opposition was due May 21, 2026.20WTOP. What’s Next for the Digital Gateway Data Center Appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court The petition next goes to a three-justice writ panel, which decides whether the full court will hear the case. Plaintiff attorney Chap Petersen said the writ panel likely cannot appear on the docket until September 2026 at the earliest, since the June session is set and the court does not hold writ panels in July or August. If the writ is granted, a hearing before the full seven-justice court would likely fall in May or June 2027, with an opinion by midsummer 2027. If the writ is denied, the case ends and the rezoning stays void.21InsideNoVA. Digital Gateway Legal Proceedings Could Stretch Into Mid-2027
A Parallel Federal Suit Over Land Contracts
Separate from the zoning fight, landowners along Pageland Lane have filed a federal lawsuit against QTS in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the developer breached purchase and sale agreements for their properties. QTS has filed a countersuit seeking to prevent what it calls wrongful termination of those contracts.4Data Center Dynamics. Compass Pulls Out of PW Digital Gateway Project That dispute is separate from the rezoning litigation and will not decide whether the Digital Gateway can be built.