Groups Ask Appeals Court to Review Rescinded FAA Drone Restriction

Amicus brief raises First Amendment questions about drone journalism as legal challenge continues

Several civil liberties and photography organizations have filed a brief in a federal case challenging an FAA drone flight restriction that the agency later withdrew.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of the District of Columbia, National Press Photographers Association and Professional Photographers of America filed the friend-of-the-court brief. It supports Minnesota photojournalist Robert Levine in his case against the Federal Aviation Administration.

Levine filed his petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in March. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press represents him.

The case raises questions about the use of drones for newsgathering and recording government activity. It also asks whether the court should review a flight restriction after the FAA has withdrawn it.

Nationwide Restriction Covered Mobile Assets

The FAA issued Notice to Air Missions FDC 6/4375 on January 16, 2026. It prohibited unauthorized drone flights within 3,000 feet horizontally and 1,000 feet above certain federal facilities and mobile assets.

The protected assets included Department of Homeland Security vehicles, vessels, convoys and escorts. The restriction also covered assets associated with the Departments of Defense and Energy.

Operators who violated the restriction could have faced civil or criminal penalties. Federal agencies could also disrupt, seize, damage or destroy drones considered a credible security threat.

Levine argued that drone pilots could not always know when an unmarked federal vehicle entered an operating area. His petition claimed that this uncertainty discouraged lawful drone flights, including flights used for journalism.

FAA Replaced Restriction With Advisory

The FAA withdrew the restriction in April, about a month after Levine filed his case. It replaced the restriction with a nationwide advisory.

The replacement advises drone operators to avoid flying near certain federal mobile assets. It also warns that agencies may act against drones considered a credible safety or security threat. However, it does not impose the same general flight prohibition or list civil and criminal penalties for entering the specified airspace.

Despite that change, Levine has asked the court to consider the original restriction. His attorneys argue that pilots could still face consequences for alleged violations committed while it remained active. They also maintain that the FAA could impose a similar restriction again.

Brief Focuses on Drone Newsgathering

The organizations’ amicus brief argues that drone photography qualifies as protected information-gathering activity under the First Amendment.

The groups say drones provide perspectives unavailable from ground-based cameras. They also note that drones can document breaking news, public demonstrations and natural disasters without placing journalists in hazardous areas.

The brief further argues that the restriction’s moving exclusion zones made compliance difficult. Because pilots might not know where federal vehicles were operating, the groups say journalists faced uncertainty when covering events involving Department of Homeland Security personnel.

These are arguments presented by Levine and the organizations supporting his case. The D.C. Circuit will determine whether the dispute remains eligible for review following the FAA’s decision to rescind the restriction: and, if so, whether the original measure complied with federal law and the Constitution. The case remains ongoing.