SpaceX is being sued on multiple fronts in 2026: South Texas homeowners say Starship launches are cracking their houses, environmental groups and a Native tribe are fighting a federal land swap and beach closures near the launch site, and regulators and shareholder advocates are pushing back on everything from wastewater discharges to the arbitration clauses in the company’s IPO paperwork. Several other high-profile cases against SpaceX have recently settled or been dismissed. Here is where each dispute stands.
Texas Homeowners Say Starship Launches Damaged Their Homes
On April 30, 2026, eighty South Texas residents filed a federal lawsuit against SpaceX in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville.1MySanAntonio. SpaceX Starship Lawsuit Texas Damage The plaintiffs own roughly 53 homes in Laguna Vista, Port Isabel, South Padre Island, and Laguna Heights, and are represented by attorney Benigno Martinez.2Valley Central. South Texas Residents Suing SpaceX Over Alleged Home Damage
The complaint covers 11 fully integrated Starship-Super Heavy test flights between April 2023 and October 2025, along with earlier non-full-stack tests going back to August 2020 and static engine firings at Boca Chica.3Florida Today. SpaceX Texas Neighbors Sue Claiming Starship Damage to Homes Plaintiffs say the “unprecedented acoustic energy, noise, vibrations, and sonic booms” from those launches have caused broken windows, cracked plaster and stucco, damaged roofs, structural shifting, compromised load-bearing connections, and failed window seals.4Moore Law Firm. SpaceX Starship Property Damage South Texas
The theories are negligence, gross negligence, and trespass. The trespass count argues that acoustic energy entered the homes without consent. On negligence, the complaint alleges SpaceX acted with “conscious indifference” to resident safety and knowingly exceeded established vibration thresholds.5Broadband Breakfast. South Texas Residents Sue SpaceX Over Alleged Damage Caused by Starship The plaintiffs point to what they call “strategic data manipulation”: SpaceX initially cited a 110-decibel threshold for structural damage, then later said damage was “improbable” below 140 decibels. SpaceX itself acknowledged that it “vastly underestimated” acoustic energy from its first launch in April 2023.4Moore Law Firm. SpaceX Starship Property Damage South Texas
They are seeking a jury trial and more than $1 million in damages, plus costs and attorney fees. As of mid-2026, SpaceX has not filed a response and no hearings have been scheduled. The company does accept property damage claims by email through a general submission process.6WESH. Lawsuit: SpaceX Starship Launches Damaged Homes in Texas
Cards Against Humanity Trespass Suit Settled
The homeowners are not the first to accuse SpaceX of intruding on nearby property. In 2024, Cards Against Humanity sued SpaceX in Cameron County district court, saying the company ignored “no trespassing” signs on a plot the card game maker had bought in 2017 as a stunt against President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall. About 150,000 donors contributed $15 each to fund that purchase.7USA Today. SpaceX Cards Against Humanity Lawsuit Settlement
The suit alleged SpaceX used the property to dump construction materials, gravel, and debris near its Starbase headquarters, clearing the natural vegetation. During discovery, SpaceX’s lawyers admitted the company had neither received nor requested permission to use the land. The complaint sought $15 million.7USA Today. SpaceX Cards Against Humanity Lawsuit Settlement
The parties settled in September 2025, ahead of a November jury trial.8New York Times. SpaceX Cards Against Humanity Lawsuit Settlement Financial terms were not disclosed, and the original donors did not receive a payout. SpaceX was required to remove its construction equipment, and Cards Against Humanity said it was working with a local landscaper to restore the property.7USA Today. SpaceX Cards Against Humanity Lawsuit Settlement
Wildlife Refuge and State Park Land Swaps
On June 10, 2026, the Center for Biological Diversity, Save RGV, the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., trying to block a Trump administration land exchange between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and SpaceX.9Center for Biological Diversity. Lawsuit Seeks to Stop SpaceX Land Deal From Destroying Texas Wildlife Refuge Under the swap, SpaceX would give up 683 acres it owns in return for 715 acres inside the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, a 103,000-acre preserve. The refuge parcel lies closer to SpaceX’s launchpad and includes part of the Palmito Ranch Battlefield National Historic Landmark.10Texas Tribune. Environmental Groups Sue to Stop SpaceX Land Deal
The suit alleges violations of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, arguing that the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to take a “hard look” at environmental impacts or consider alternatives to giving away refuge land.10Texas Tribune. Environmental Groups Sue to Stop SpaceX Land Deal The agency’s final environmental assessment concluded the swap would produce “no significant impact” and a “net conservation benefit,” and it has declined to comment on the pending case.11U.S. News. Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration’s Land Swap With SpaceX in Texas
A related state case, filed in Travis County in April 2024, targets a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department swap of 43 acres of Boca Chica State Park for about 477 acres of private land near Port Isabel. The Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe, the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, and Save RGV say the department ignored statutory requirements to weigh alternatives and minimize harm to parkland.12Houston Public Media. South Texas Groups Sue Texas Parks and Wildlife for Pursuing Land Swap Deal With SpaceX That case is still pending.
Boca Chica Beach Closures at the Texas Supreme Court
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 5, 2026, in a case challenging the beach closures that accompany SpaceX launches. Save RGV, the Sierra Club, and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas sued the Texas General Land Office and Cameron County, arguing the closures of Boca Chica Beach violate the Open Beaches Amendment to the Texas Constitution, which they say guarantees the public an “unrestricted right” to use public beaches.13Texas Tribune. Texas Supreme Court Boca Chica Cameron County SpaceX Beach Access
The state relies on Texas House Bill 2623, a 2013 law letting counties temporarily close public beaches for spaceflight. The Attorney General’s office argues the Open Beaches Amendment does not require around-the-clock access and that the closures are a valid exercise of police power. During arguments, Justice Evan A. Young suggested that a year-round closure would likely exceed that authority.14U.S. News. Legal Fight Over SpaceX Beach Closures Hits Texas Supreme Court A decision was expected by mid-2026.15Texas Public Radio. Texas Supreme Court Weighs Constitutional Beach Access in Case Against SpaceX
FAA Environmental Case Dismissed
A separate federal case did not survive. In May 2023, the Center for Biological Diversity, the American Bird Conservancy, the Surfrider Foundation, Save RGV, and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas sued the FAA in Washington, D.C., arguing the agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act by approving Starship’s launch license with a Programmatic Environmental Assessment instead of a full Environmental Impact Statement.16Space News. Environmental Groups Sue FAA Over Starship Launch License
In September 2025, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols dismissed the case, finding no evidence the FAA had failed to independently evaluate SpaceX’s assessment. He called the FAA’s conclusions “well-reasoned and supported by the record” and, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling, said courts should avoid “micromanaging federal agencies” acting within a “broad zone of reasonableness.”17Texas Tribune. Texas SpaceX Boca Chica FAA Environmental Lawsuit
California Coastal Commission Settlement
On the West Coast, SpaceX tangled with the California Coastal Commission over Falcon 9 launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base. In October 2024, the Commission voted 6-4 to reject the U.S. Air Force’s proposal to raise the annual launch cap from 35 to 50. SpaceX sued, alleging “naked political discrimination” and arguing that commissioners based their vote on hostility toward Musk’s political views, in violation of the company’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.18Courthouse News. California Coastal Commission Apologizes to SpaceX, Settles Retaliation Lawsuit
The parties settled on April 28, 2026. The Commission issued a formal apology for members’ comments about Musk’s political beliefs at the 2024 hearing and agreed it “may not consider irrelevant factors” such as the “perceived political beliefs, political speech or labor practices of SpaceX or its officers” in future regulatory decisions. It also acknowledged that it lacks authority to require a coastal development permit for launches already cleared under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.18Courthouse News. California Coastal Commission Apologizes to SpaceX, Settles Retaliation Lawsuit The agreement awaits final approval from U.S. District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.19Los Angeles Times. SpaceX Settles Lawsuit With State Coastal Commission Over Flights
DOJ Hiring Discrimination Case Dropped
On August 23, 2023, the Department of Justice sued SpaceX for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act, alleging the company had told refugees and asylees that it could hire only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents because of International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The DOJ said that was a misstatement of the law, since ITAR defines “U.S. person” to include refugees and asylees. Musk countered that the company had been “told repeatedly” that hiring non-permanent residents would violate arms trafficking law.20Jurist. US Attorneys to Drop Lawsuit Accusing SpaceX of Immigrant Discrimination
SpaceX challenged the constitutionality of the administrative proceedings before the Fifth Circuit and won a preliminary injunction in November 2023. In February 2025, DOJ attorneys moved to dismiss the case with prejudice, offering no public explanation.21New York Times. SpaceX Elon Musk Discrimination DOJ On February 24, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Carol A. Bell granted the motion, and on March 3, 2025, the federal district court dismissed SpaceX’s related constitutional challenge as moot.22Immigration Policy Tracking. DOJ Drops Case Against SpaceX for Discriminatory Hiring Practices Against Immigrants
NLRB Retaliation Complaint Dismissed
In June 2022, a group of SpaceX employees circulated an open letter criticizing Musk’s public statements. SpaceX fired eight of them, and the workers filed unfair labor practice charges. In January 2024, NLRB Region 19 issued a formal complaint alleging unlawful retaliation under the National Labor Relations Act.23Proskauer. What’s Next After NLRB Dismissal of SpaceX Suit
SpaceX argued the NLRB had no jurisdiction because it should be classified as a transportation company under the Railway Labor Act. In January 2026, the National Mediation Board agreed, holding that “space transport includes air travel.” On February 9, 2026, the NLRB’s regional director dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. A separate Fifth Circuit ruling in August 2025 had already affirmed preliminary injunctions blocking the NLRB proceedings on the ground that removal protections for NLRB judges and board members were likely unconstitutional.23Proskauer. What’s Next After NLRB Dismissal of SpaceX Suit
Starlink Satellite License Upheld
SpaceX has also been on the winning side of challenges to its Starlink internet constellation. DISH Network and the International Dark-Sky Association challenged the FCC’s 2022 conditional license authorizing up to 29,988 second-generation Starlink satellites, with initial approval for 7,500. DISH argued the satellites would interfere with its geostationary fleet; the Dark-Sky Association argued the FCC violated NEPA by not assessing light pollution.24FCC. Court Decision, International Dark-Sky Association v. FCC
On July 12, 2024, the D.C. Circuit unanimously rejected both challenges. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote that DISH’s evidence fell “well short of a smoking gun” and that FCC satellite licensing decisions are “categorically excluded from environmental processing” under the agency’s rules.25Broadband Breakfast. Court Upholds FCC Approval of Starlink’s LEO Launch License
Clean Water Act Penalty Over Launch Site Wastewater
SpaceX’s environmental compliance at Boca Chica has drawn enforcement action from both the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The EPA opened a probe in August 2023 and in March 2024 issued a formal notice of violation for discharging industrial wastewater from the launch pad’s deluge system without a permit. TCEQ separately found four unpermitted discharges between March and July 2024.26CNBC. SpaceX Repeatedly Polluted Waters in Texas, TCEQ EPA Found
Under a Consent Agreement and Final Order, SpaceX agreed to pay a civil penalty of $148,378 to the EPA.27EPA. SpaceX Consent Agreement and Final Order The company also applied in July 2024 for an individual wastewater discharge permit. That application reported mercury concentrations at one outfall of 113 micrograms per liter, roughly 54 times the state’s acute aquatic toxicity standard of 2.1 micrograms per liter; SpaceX later said the figure was a “typo” and it was updating the application.26CNBC. SpaceX Repeatedly Polluted Waters in Texas, TCEQ EPA Found
IPO Terms Draw Shareholder Pushback
SpaceX’s 2026 initial public offering created a different kind of legal controversy: rules meant to head off shareholder lawsuits before they start. The S-1 registration statement includes a mandatory arbitration clause for all shareholder claims under federal securities law, a jury trial waiver, and a ban on class actions against the company, its officers, directors, and bankers. Musk holds over 50% of voting power through supervoting shares. The company’s Texas incorporation lets it use Senate Bill 29, enacted in 2025, which allows corporations to require shareholders to own up to 3% of outstanding stock before filing a derivative lawsuit. At a projected valuation above $2 trillion, that threshold would run into the billions.28Ars Technica. Report: SpaceX IPO Gives Musk Unchecked Power and Forbids Investor Lawsuits
On May 14, 2026, the New York State Comptroller, the New York City Comptroller, and the CEO of CalPERS, together representing more than $1 trillion in assets, sent a letter to SpaceX demanding it drop the mandatory arbitration provision. They noted that while a September 2025 SEC policy statement permits such clauses, “no major U.S. issuer has previously adopted such a provision for a public offering.”29NYC Comptroller. Letter to SpaceX Re IPO No formal legal challenge to the IPO terms has been filed as of mid-2026.