By Andrea Arens

A Will County judge has temporarily blocked county officials from moving forward with a controversial solar project, ruling that nearby residents were denied fundamental due process during public hearings.

In a sharply worded order issued April 15, the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Burke et al. v. County of Will, siding with plaintiffs who challenged the handling of hearings tied to a large-scale solar development.

The ruling prevents Will County from taking final action on the project—identified in court records as Zoning Case ZC-25-129—until residents are given a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence.

Residents Denied ‘Meaningful’ Voice

At the heart of the decision is the court’s finding that adjacent landowners were improperly limited to five-minute public comments and were barred from directly questioning the developer during evidentiary proceedings.

The judge concluded that this format fell short of constitutional due process protections.

“Cross-examination serves a distinct function that cannot be replaced by general public comment,” the order states, emphasizing that the ability to test testimony and challenge evidence is essential in quasi-judicial zoning hearings.

The court relied heavily on the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Klaeren v. Village of Lisle, which established that interested parties in special use cases have the right to cross-examine witnesses.

Last-Minute Offer Insufficient

The court also rejected the county’s argument that a late offer to allow questioning of witnesses corrected the issue.

According to the ruling, plaintiffs’ attorney had already been told cross-examination would not be permitted and reasonably relied on that representation. By the time the county reversed course, the opportunity was no longer meaningful.

“The subsequent offer…did not provide a realistic opportunity to exercise the right,” the judge wrote.

Irreparable Harm Possible

In granting the TRO, the court found that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without intervention—specifically, the loss of the ability to build a complete evidentiary record.

Once a hearing proceeds without cross-examination, the judge noted, the damage cannot be undone.

“That loss cannot be remedied through monetary damages or after-the-fact review,” the order states.

A Critical Pause

Importantly, the court stopped short of throwing out the entire hearing process. Instead, the ruling requires a limited continuation of proceedings to correct the procedural flaw.

Under the order:

• Plaintiffs must be given a structured opportunity to cross-examine witnesses

• Plaintiffs may present evidence

• The county may rely on the existing record

• No additional general public comment is required

This narrower remedy preserves much of the prior proceedings while forcing the county to address what the court called a “core procedural deficiency.”

County Blocked from Final Vote

Until that process is completed, Will County is barred from voting on or approving the solar project.

The case will return to court for a status hearing on April 24.

No Bond Required

The court also declined to require plaintiffs to post a bond—often mandated in injunction cases—finding that the lawsuit is focused on protecting constitutional rights rather than seeking financial gain.

The judge noted that the burden on the county is minimal, as the order only delays action and does not permanently stop the project.

Implications for Solar Projects Across Will County

The ruling could have broader implications for how Will County — and potentially other Illinois municipalities — conduct hearings on large-scale solar developments.

In recent months, local governments have faced increasing pressure from state laws that limit their ability to deny renewable energy projects. This case, however, underscores that procedural fairness remains a legal requirement, regardless of those policy shifts.

For opponents of the project, the decision marks a significant early victory.

For the county, it signals that future hearings may need to include more formal evidentiary procedures to withstand legal scrutiny.

As one central issue in the case made clear: even as the scope of what local governments can consider narrows, how they conduct hearings still matters—and must meet constitutional standards.

Regardless, the Will County Board still is expected to vote on six other solar plans at its April 16 meeting at 9:30 a.m. at the Clarion Hotel, South Larkin and McDonough, in Joliet.

On the docket is Earthrise Energy’s 2,400-acre Plum Valley proposal, approved by the county’s Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Board’s Land Use and Zoning Committee.

The board also must approve five solar plans it had rejected in 2024 and 2025 by Friday, following a court order last week by Associate Judge Ben Braun

Attorney David Silverman, representing the villages of Shorewood and Channahon, had filed for a temporary restraining order on the two plans set in Shorewood and one in Channahon. But a judge rejected that request Wednesday, setting a status hearing for Friday.

Andrea Arens is a freelance reporter. Farmers Weekly Review Editor Nick Reiher contributed to this story.