Vacate a Drone Restriction That Criminalized Recording Immigration Agents
Recorded: Sept. 22, 2026, 4:01 p.m.
| Original | Summarized |
D.C. Circuit Must Vacate a Drone Flight Restriction That Criminalized Recording Immigration Agents | Electronic Frontier Foundation Skip to main content AboutContact IssuesFree Speech Our WorkDeeplinks Blog Take ActionAction Center ToolsPrivacy Badger Shop
Email updates on news, actions, Join EFF Lists Copyright (CC BY) Electronic Frontier Foundation Donate If you use technology, this fight is yours.Donate today Electronic Frontier Foundation AboutContact IssuesFree Speech Our WorkDeeplinks Blog Take ActionAction Center ToolsPrivacy Badger Shop
D.C. Circuit Must Vacate a Drone Flight Restriction That Criminalized Recording Immigration Agents DEEPLINKS BLOG By Sophia CopeSeptember 21, 2026
D.C. Circuit Must Vacate a Drone Flight Restriction That Criminalized Recording Immigration Agents
EFF joined an amicus brief with ACLU, ACLU of D.C., National Press Photographers Association, and Professional Photographers of America to urge the D.C. Circuit to vacate an FAA drone flight restriction that violated the First Amendment right to record law enforcement. This is an important case—Levine v. FAA—challenging the ability of the government to punish drone pilots who record law enforcement officers engaged in official business. Related Issues Share It
Related Updates Deeplinks Blog The EU Commission draft law to restrict young people’s access to the internet that it presented last week will come at a high cost: it will put online services behind age gates, expand the use of intrusive age verification, and undermine the privacy of all users. The EU... Deeplinks Blog Technology should empower people, not control them. In 2025, that core belief faced unprecedented challenges. But with the support of our members, donors, partners, and communities, we fought back and made meaningful progress. Today, we’re proud to share our 2025 Annual Report, highlighting the people, cases, campaigns, and advocacy... Deeplinks Blog A California law that prohibits teens from receiving recommended social media content from other social media users violates their First Amendment rights, EFF argued this week.The case, Meta v. Bonta, challenges SB 976, which requires that teen social media users get their parents’ permission before seeing other users’ recommended... Deeplinks Blog A federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that copyright holders can issue online takedown notices based on a subjective belief of copyright infringement, even when that belief is unreasonable and self-serving. The case was brought by our client, Channel 781 News, after takedown notices temporarily shut down the citizen journalism... Deeplinks Blog This is likely an undercount. The full scope is hard to pin down because these subpoenas typically only come to light when a user is given notice and challenges them in court, or when a company documents them in a transparency report. Deeplinks Blog The settlement enshrines Meta's harmful surveillance into law, and it will compromise users' privacy and anonymity while increasing their exposure to data breaches and government data requests. Deeplinks Blog Brazil's new internet intermediary liability regime is underway. The implementation of changes established by the Supreme Court includes notice and takedown mechanisms and duty of care obligations. Caution is crucial as these measures can create problematic incentives for enforcement overreach and over censorship of protected speech. The... Deeplinks Blog When companies receive these unlawful subpoenas, they should be clear with the public that they will not hand over the data unless a court compels them to do so. Deeplinks Blog Imagine if McDonald’s could use trademark law to control how you use the term “fast food.” Or if the Canadian government could stop you from using the word “Canada” in the title of a book about the country and its people. That wouldn’t just be absurd; it would be an... Deeplinks Blog Access to accurate information about reproductive and maternal health can be critical. But on Meta's platforms, simply talking about prescription medication, abortion care, or one's own medical experiences can be enough to trigger content removals and account restrictions.That's why EFF recently submitted a public comment to the Meta Oversight Board...
Share on MastodonShare on BlueskyShare on Facebook Related IssuesFree Speech Back to top
Follow EFF: mastodon Check out our 4-star rating on Charity Navigator. Contact About Issues Updates Press Donate Copyright (CC BY) JavaScript license information |
The Electronic Frontier Foundation joined an amicus brief with organizations including the ACLU, ACLU of D.C., the National Press Photographers Association, and the Professional Photographers of America to urge the D.C. Circuit to vacate an FAA drone flight restriction that was deemed to have criminalized the recording of immigration agents. This case, identified as Levine v. FAA, challenges the government's ability to penalize drone pilots for recording law enforcement officers engaged in official duties. The core dispute involves an FAA flight restriction that effectively criminalized the recording of Department of Homeland Security officers, specifically immigration agents from ICE and CBP, and their associated vehicles, including "mobile assets" such as ground vehicle convoys and escorts, even when the drone was over half a mile away. Although the FAA subsequently rescinded this flight restriction in April, the petitioner argued that the court should evaluate the legality of the restriction as it existed at the time of the violation, as drone pilots could still be punished for actions taken while the restriction was in effect. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the FAA's rescission did not reflect a genuine change of heart but rather an attempt to avoid judicial review. The petitioner argued that drones possess unique capabilities, providing perspectives that cannot be captured by ground-based imagery, and they are more maneuverable, safer, and cheaper alternatives to using manned aircraft for capturing noteworthy events. The brief emphasized that drones have been utilized to capture bird’s-eye images of protest activity and police use of force against protestors, and to allow journalists to gather up-to-the-minute information during natural disasters without personal risk. The amicus brief further argued that the use of drones for image and video capture constitutes information-gathering activity protected by the First Amendment, comparable to the right to record law enforcement using cell phones. The petitioners contended that the FAA’s flight restriction appeared specifically designed to suppress the recording of immigration agents and thus impede accountability for their enforcement actions. The argument was advanced that imposing such a restriction on speech would constitute a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny, which the FAA could not justify with a valid governmental interest. Moreover, the brief asserted that even under less rigorous standards of First Amendment scrutiny, the restriction was unconstitutional because the FAA failed to articulate any legitimate governmental interest that would justify such a sweeping limitation on speech. The EFF urged the D.C. Circuit to review the petition and vacate the FAA’s flight restriction, seeking a decision that affirms that the government cannot avoid accountability by punishing individuals exercising their First Amendment rights. This effort is considered particularly urgent given ongoing government investment in technology designed to counter drones, technology that could be deployed against journalists and others attempting to document government abuses. |