The ruling on September 16, 2026, marks a significant setback for the former executive, who had challenged the board’s authority to set a 70% supermajority requirement for bylaw changes and to enforce a September 10 nomination deadline for the October 30 annual meeting. In his decision, Judge Stagner upheld the board's May 2026 amendments, confirming that Texas business statutes explicitly permit the voting standards in question.

Legal proceedings were marked by a notable discrepancy regarding the plaintiff's credibility. Just one day before the hearing, the former CEO signed a sworn verification stating his complaint was accurate, despite his own legal counsel later conceding at the hearing that key allegations within the document were incorrect. The court found no evidence of fraud or improper purpose and declined to grant the discovery requests sought by the plaintiff. Fermi Chairman Marius Haas characterized the legal challenge as a malicious distraction, reiterating that the board remains focused on its fiduciary duties and the development of the company's private electric grid infrastructure.