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 contested for being unconstitutional due to its vagueness, lack of advance notice for drone operators, and its chilling effect on newsgathering and commercial drone activities.
Critics argue the restriction creates an "invisible," constantly shifting no-fly zone around mobile DHS assets, making compliance impossible and leading to severe, automatic penalties for inadvertent violations.
The lawsuit, supported by civil liberties and news organizations, argues the TFR violates the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act by limiting free speech and due process.

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.