The FAA created no fly zones around unmarked DHS vehicles that were impossible to identify or obey, prompting freelance photojournalist Rob Levine to sue in the DC Circuit arguing the restriction was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The FAA quietly rescinded the rule and…
Federal agencies can create no-fly zones around unmarked vehicles and do so without announcement. That is what Rob Levine, a Minneapolis-based freelance photojournalist, learned when he sued over one. What the court record now shows is why the FAA actually rescinded the restriction: not because it acknowledged the rule was unlawful, but because it did not want a judge to say so first.
Grayson Clary, an attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press who filed the lawsuit that forced the reversal, put it plainly: the agency did not want to have to defend what it did on the merits in front of the DC Circuit. The lawsuit, filed March 16 in the DC Circuit under case number 26-1054, argued the restriction was an unconstitutional prior restraint on journalism and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Clary filed an emergency motion on April 10, 2026, seeking a stay of the restriction pending the court's ruling.
The rule prohibited drones from flying within 3,000 lateral feet and 1,000 vertical feet of any unmarked DHS vehicle — cars driven by federal agents whose routes were not public. You cannot obey a no-fly zone around a vehicle you cannot identify.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the original rule a blatant attempt to criminalize filming ICE. A coalition of more than 50 news organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, sent a formal objection to the FAA on January 28 calling the restriction sweeping and unprecedented. The Drone Service Providers Alliance published an analysis noting the rule was a compliance impossibility: there was no way to see the no-fly zone before you were already inside it.
The FAA replaced the original rule on April 15 with an advisory that drops the specific distances and removes all penalties. It does not carry enforcement mechanisms. The agencies that wanted operational secrecy still have it, because an advisory unlike a no-fly zone cannot be challenged in court.
Levine is back in the air. The lawsuit is still live. The Reporters Committee wants the DC Circuit to rule on the merits — to establish that this kind of restriction is impermissible — rather than let the FAA's quiet retreat reset the legal question to zero. If the case is dismissed as moot, the underlying legal question is unresolved: federal agencies can attempt to shield unmarked vehicles from drone cameras, and the only check on that power is a lawsuit filed after the fact. The FAA has demonstrated it will blink when sued. It has not conceded the point. A court has not ruled on it.
"This is a big win," Levine said in a statement. "It was heartbreaking to have my drones grounded at a time of such importance to my community, but I'm looking forward to getting back up there and getting back to my journalism as soon as possible."
Rob Levine is a freelance photojournalist based in Minneapolis. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press represented him at no charge.