Civil Liberties Groups Ask Appeals Court to Review Rescinded FAA Drone Restriction

The legal challenge and amicus support

Minnesota photojournalist Robert Levine filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in March challenging the FAA's restriction. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press represents Levine.

Multiple civil liberties and photography organizations — the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, the National Press Photographers Association and Professional Photographers of America — filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Levine. Their brief centers on the First Amendment and the role of drones in journalism.

Why Levine and the groups say the restriction mattered

Levine's petition and the amicus brief make two practical legal claims:

• The restriction's moving exclusion zones created uncertainty. Because federal vehicles and convoys are often unmarked or mobile, operators could not reliably know when they were inside banned airspace. That uncertainty discouraged lawful flights, including those used for reporting.

FAA response and the case's procedural issue

In April 2026 the FAA withdrew the restriction and replaced it with a nationwide advisory. The advisory recommends avoiding flight near certain federal mobile assets and warns agencies may act against drones considered a credible safety or security threat, but it does not reimpose the prior broad prohibition or spell out the same penalties.

Despite that change Levine asked the D.C. Circuit to review the original restriction. His attorneys argue pilots could still face consequences for alleged violations that occurred while the restriction was active, and the FAA could issue a similar rule again.

The D.C. Circuit must first determine whether Levine's challenge remains eligible for judicial review now that the FAA has rescinded the formal restriction. If the court agrees the case is live, it will address whether the original measure complied with federal law and the Constitution — specifically, whether it unlawfully limited newsgathering protected by the First Amendment or was otherwise invalid.

If the court allows review and finds the original notice problematic, the ruling could influence how the FAA drafts future restrictions or advisories that affect journalists and other information-gatherers. It could also clarify whether and when agencies may issue moving, nationwide prohibitions that affect drone operations without clear, manageable boundaries.

The case remains ongoing in the D.C. Circuit. The court's decisions on reviewability and the constitutional questions will determine whether the substantive claims proceed and what limits, if any, will apply to future FAA measures affecting drone newsgathering.