A photojournalist is challenging FAA’s drone ban over DHS vehicles

A Minneapolis photojournalist is asking a federal court to strike down what federal press freedom advocates describe as the most consequential restriction on aerial newsgathering in years.

Rob Levine, who flies drones for photojournalism work, filed a petition March 16 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging a federal flight restriction that he argues makes it effectively impossible to cover federal immigration enforcement operations without risking criminal charges.

The target is NOTAM FDC 6/4375, which RCFP characterizes as a special security instruction barring drone flights within 3,000 lateral feet and 1,000 vertical feet of Department of Homeland Security facilities and mobile assets — meaning vehicles and boats, not just fixed buildings. The restriction carries civil and criminal penalties for violations, including potential seizure of the drone itself.

Levine is being represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a legal organization that has been building a docket of cases tied to press access during the current immigration enforcement era. RCFP attorneys Grayson Clary and Adam A. Marshall argue in the petition that the restriction is unconstitutional, overly vague under the Administrative Procedure Act, and has had a measurable chilling effect on drone journalism covering matters of public concern.

The core problem with the mobile assets provision is not subtle: there is no public registry of where unmarked DHS vehicles are operating at any given time. A drone pilot covering a protest, a courthouse, or a residential neighborhood has no means of determining in real time whether an unmarked ICE vehicle is within 3,000 feet. The restriction is worded as a spatial limit. In practice, it functions as a geographic prohibition over large portions of any city where immigration enforcement is active.

Drone pilots are being forced to choose between not gathering the news and risking criminal charges, massive fines, or a career-ending revocation of their right to fly, Levine said in a statement released by RCFP. That is unacceptable.

The petition notes that the restriction was issued without prior public notice. The locations of fixed DHS facilities are at least knowable in advance. The live positions of mobile enforcement assets are not.

RCFP has been active on related press freedom issues. In the past year, the organization has pushed courts to lift immigration records restrictions, called on DHS to protect journalist access rights, and published legal guides for reporters covering immigration enforcement in English and Spanish. The Levine petition is the latest front in that broader effort.

The D.C. Circuit is the right venue for this kind of challenge — it handles federal agency actions and has jurisdiction over challenges to FAA orders. But the case is in its early stages, and legal observers say appellate arguments, if they happen, could be months away.

The stakes for drone journalism are concrete. Aerial footage has become a standard tool for covering law enforcement operations, protests, and government activity. A restriction that makes drone flight near federal enforcement operations a potential criminal matter effectively removes that capability from any journalist who cannot afford to litigate the question before every flight. Whether a court agrees that the restriction exceeds the FAA's statutory authority — or whether it finds the restriction was properly promulgated under the APA — will determine whether that de facto ban holds.

Sources: RCFP press release and petition filing, March 16, 2026. NOTAM FDC 6/4375 (characterized by RCFP as a special security instruction).