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-based 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 widely criticized for being unconstitutional, vague, and constantly shifting, making it nearly impossible for drone operators to comply as it applies to mobile DHS assets, including unmarked vehicles.
The lawsuit argues the TFR violates First and Fifth Amendment rights (including freedom of the press and due process) and the Administrative Procedure Act, as it lacked public notice and imposes severe penalties for inadvertent violations.
Critics contend the restriction has a chilling effect on newsgathering and broadly impacts commercial drone operations, deliveries, and public safety programs due to its pervasive and undefined nature.

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.