On September 4 2026, EFF, ACLU, ACLU of DC, the National Press Photographers Association, and Professional Photographers of America asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to vacate an FAA rule (Notice to Air Missions FDC 6/4375) that, for 21 months, criminalized flying drones within 3,000 lateral feet and 1,000 vertical feet of any Department of Homeland Security officer, vehicle, or “mobile asset” — even if the drone was more than half a mile from the nearest officer. [1][2]

The rule started January 16 2026, ran until October 29 2027, covered the entire nation, and exposed violators to criminal and civil penalties plus seizure or destruction of the drone. [3] The FAA rescinded the rule on April 15 2026 and replaced it with a non-binding advisory (FDC 6/2824). [3] But the case is still live: pilots can still be punished for flights made under the now-rescinded rule, and the FAA can reinstate it at any time. [2][4]

The FAA’s underlying legal authority did not disappear — it remains intact in Section 2209 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, with a proposed rule (Federal Register document 2026-08943, May 6 2026) still awaiting a final version. [5] Nothing stops the FAA from issuing a substantially similar NOTAM the next time DHS, DOD, or DOE want drone cameras kept away from an operation. [5]

EFF argues the rule is content-based — it specifically prohibits recording immigration officers, not officers in general — and therefore triggers strict scrutiny, the highest constitutional standard. [1] ACLU adds the operational argument: ICE vehicles — frequently without plates, unmarked, or with swapped plates — cannot be located ahead of time. [3] The rule did not restrict drones near airports, military bases, or stadiums — it only restricted drones near federal immigration enforcement. [2]

Minneapolis photojournalist Rob Levine — who sued the FAA on March 16 2026 represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — summed up the dilemma: “These restrictions force drone pilots to choose between not gathering the news and risking criminal charges, massive fines, or a career-ending revocation of their right to fly. That’s unacceptable.” [4]

(The FAA did not wait for a ruling to withdraw the rule, but the voluntary-cessation doctrine does not automatically moot a case when the defendant retains the legal authority to reinstate the challenged conduct — and Section 2209 is still there.) [5]

The editorial question for a Mexican, Brazilian, or Argentine procurement office signing an enterprise CCTV contract in Q4 2026: if the FAA could issue a NOTAM that effectively criminalized recording immigration officers with drones for 21 months, what stops Mexico’s SCT or Brazil’s ANAC from issuing an equivalent NOTAM that suppresses aerial auditing of your public CCTV deployment? [2]

Mexico already has the regulatory scaffolding. NOM-107-SCT3-2019 — Mexico’s official standard under AFAC and the SICT — prohibits foreign-registered drones and foreign operators without a bilateral agreement, and in CDMX the Benito Juárez airport creates a 9.2 km no-fly radius that covers the Zócalo, the National Palace, government buildings, and Chapultepec Castle due to proximity to military areas. [6] Mexico’s Federal Law on Protection of Personal Data requires consent before capturing images of private individuals with a drone. [6] In Tijuana in fiscal year 2025, 34,682 drone flights were detected within 500 meters of the US-Mexico border. [6]

The structural piece that Mexico still lacks — and that the EFF amicus now defines for the US case — is what happens if SCT issues a NOTAM with the same text as FDC 6/4375, prohibiting drones within X feet of any “federal facility” or “mobile patrol”? [1][5] The federal rulemaking under Section 2209 plus the DC Circuit amicus are now the structural precedent that any citizen audit of a public CCTV deployment in LATAM can cite.

Every time I review an enterprise CCTV contract at tv4agent, the question that is no longer optional is whether your RFP requires surveillance in a Mexican public space — a C5 in CDMX, a C4 in Monterrey, a municipal network in Tijuana — and whether your contract specifies that SCT and AFAC will not issue content-targeted NOTAMs against auditing your network; if the answer is “no,” you are accepting a compliance surface the Levine amicus calls explicitly unconstitutional under strict scrutiny. [1]

P.D. Does your enterprise CCTV RFP in Mexico or Brazil require in writing that the civil aviation authority (SCT and AFAC in Mexico, ANAC and DECEA in Brazil) will not issue content-targeted NOTAMs against drones that record your public deployment from the air? [unverified] If the answer is “no,” today is a good day to add that clause before the next NOTAM silences the audit of your own contract. [unverified]

📰 Sources verified in grounded-citations: EFF Deeplinks Sep 21 [1]; StateOfSurveillance Sep 28 [2]; EFF Deeplinks Apr 3 [3]. Additional technical and regulatory analysis: RCFP Levine v FAA [4]; UAS Feed Sep 22 [5]; Drone Laws Mexico NOM-107-SCT3-2019 [6].

Sources

[1] EFF Deeplinks — “DC Circuit Must Vacate a Drone Flight Restriction That Criminalized Recording Immigration Agents” (Sophia Cope, Sep 21 2026). https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/09/dc-circuit-must-vacate-drone-flight-restriction-criminalized-recording-immigration [2] StateOfSurveillance — “EFF, ACLU, NPPA, PPA File Amicus in DC Circuit on FAA Drone Recording Restriction” (Sep 28 2026). https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/eff-aclu-dc-circuit-faa-drone-flight-restriction-amicus-2026/ [3] EFF Deeplinks — “The FAA’s ‘Temporary’ Flight Restriction for Drones is a Blatant Attempt to Criminalize Filming ICE” (Sophia Cope + Raj Gambhir, Apr 3 2026). https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/faas-temporary-flight-restriction-drones-blatant-attempt-criminalize-filming-ice [4] Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — “Levine v Federal Aviation Administration” (case page). https://www.rcfp.org/litigation/levine-v-federal-aviation-administration/ [5] UAS Feed — “Civil Liberties Groups Urge DC Circuit to Vacate FAA’s Rescinded Drone-Journalism Restriction” (Sep 22 2026). https://uasfeed.com/article/levine-v-faa-drone-journalism-restriction-september-2026 [6] Drone Laws in Mexico — Registration, NOM-107-SCT3-2019, AFAC enforcement (accessed 2026-10-01). https://dronesgator.com/drone-laws-in-mexico