Controversial DHS TFR Faces First Legal Challenge

Minnesota photojournalist sues FAA over restrictions, which cover DHS ‘mobile assets.’

Jack Daleo

Wednesday, March 25, 2026 at 01:00 PM ET

Verified

Edited By:

Travis Tingle

Expansive TFR covers all DHS ‘mobile assets,’ raising questions about how drone operators are meant to comply with constantly shifting restrictions. [Credit: iStock]

Key Takeaways:

A Minnesota journalist has filed the first legal challenge against a controversial FAA temporary flight restriction (TFR) that bans drones from flying near U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ground operations.
The TFR is argued to be unconstitutional, violating First and Fifth Amendment rights, due to its vague and constantly shifting nature, which makes compliance impossible for drone operators and chills newsgathering.
Critics highlight the TFR's punitive enforcement, with potential for severe penalties and criminal charges without prior notice, and its broad negative impact on commercial and public safety drone operations.

See a mistake? Contact us.

A Minnesota-based journalist this month filed what appears to be the first legal challenge against a controversial FAA temporary flight restriction (TFR) that bans drones from flying near U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ground operations.

In a petition filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, independent photojournalist Rob Levine argued that the TFR is unconstitutional and has effectively chilled aerial newsgathering. Issued in January via notice to airmen (NOTAM), the restriction covers DHS “mobile assets” including “vessels and ground vehicle convoys and their associated escorts,” citing national security concerns.