Court Challenge Could Shape FCC Authority Over Previously Approved Drones

Hikvision challenge comes as FCC considers restrictions on previously authorized foreign-produced drones

A case argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit this week could clarify the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to restrict equipment it previously approved.

That question has a direct connection to the drone industry. The FCC is considering whether to prohibit continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized foreign-produced drones and drone components.

The D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments October 6 in Hikvision USA, Inc. v. FCC, No. 25-1274. Hikvision is challenging part of a 2025 FCC order concerning equipment on the agency’s Covered List. The court’s official record identifies Judges Srinivasan, Millett and Garcia as the panel hearing the case.

At issue is an FCC rule establishing a procedure for the Commission to restrict equipment authorizations that it had previously granted.

In its brief to the court, the FCC describes the rule as creating a procedure through which it can limit previously granted authorizations of covered equipment to prohibit its “continued importation and marketing, without prohibiting the continued use of such devices.”

Hikvision challenges the FCC’s authority to adopt that rule. The FCC argues that it has authority under federal law to address national security risks through its equipment authorization program, including by limiting or revoking existing authorizations.

A Direct Connection to the FCC’s Drone Proposal

The legal dispute comes as the FCC considers using this regulatory framework for many foreign-produced drones.

On July 21, the FCC opened PS Docket No. 26-189, seeking comment on a proposal involving certain foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components. The agency described the proposal as one that could “prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized foreign-produced” UAS and components that are both on the Covered List and meet its proposed definitions of “military-grade UAS and UAS critical components.”

The words “previously authorized” create the direct connection between the two proceedings.

The Hikvision case challenges the FCC’s authority to restrict previously granted equipment authorizations for Covered List equipment. At the same time, the FCC is considering restrictions on continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized foreign-produced UAS and components on the Covered List.

The FCC’s drone proposal would not prohibit operators from continuing to use equipment they already own. That distinction mirrors the rule at issue in the Hikvision litigation, which the FCC says allows restrictions on future importation and marketing without prohibiting continued use.

The D.C. Circuit case does not concern drones, and its outcome will not necessarily resolve every legal question surrounding the FCC’s UAS proposal. However, it puts the scope of the FCC’s authority over previously authorized Covered List equipment before a federal appeals court at the same time the Commission is considering applying that framework directly to certain foreign-produced drones and drone components.