284 F. Supp. 3d 125
D.D.C.2017Background
- Newton, MA enacted an ordinance regulating "pilotless aircraft" (drones) in Dec. 2016, including city registration and operational limits (altitude, line-of-sight, and bans over city property without permission).
- Singer, an FAA-certified remote pilot and Newton resident who operates drones commercially (not as a hobbyist), sued seeking declaratory relief that specified provisions are preempted by federal law.
- The City defended on the ground that the FAA has contemplated local co-regulation of certain UAS matters and that the ordinance can be read to harmonize with federal rules.
- The FAA has promulgated Part 107 rules (including FAA registration, 400-foot altitude guidance, and visual-line-of-sight rules) and issued guidance stating federal registration is exclusive and recommending FAA consultation for local rules affecting navigable airspace.
- Court proceeded on cross-motions for summary judgment (case-stated posture) and addressed preemption under Supremacy Clause, analyzing field and conflict preemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Newton may require local registration of all pilotless aircraft (Ordinance §20-64(b)) | Singer: Local registration conflicts with FAA's exclusive registration authority and Taylor v. Huerta decisions. | Newton: FAA left room for local regulation; city may fill gaps. | Registration requirement preempted; FAA registration is exclusive without FAA approval. |
| Whether ordinance bars flight below 400 ft over private property without owner permission (§20-64(c)(1)(a)) | Singer: Conflicts with FAA objective and Part 107 altitude framework; obstructs integration of UAS. | Newton: Intended to protect privacy and property; fits local police power. | Preempted; effectively bans FAA-permitted low-altitude operations and thwarts federal objectives. |
| Whether ordinance prohibits flight over city property without permission (§20-64(c)(1)(e)) | Singer: Applies to navigable airspace and conflicts with FAA authority; no altitude limit so it reaches federally controlled airspace. | Newton: Seeks local control of city property to protect public safety/privacy. | Preempted; reaches into navigable airspace and, combined with (a), effectively prohibits drone use in city absent permission. |
| Whether ban on operating beyond visual line of sight (§20-64(c)(1)(b)) | Singer: Conflicts with FAA visual-line-of-sight rules and FAA waiver process under Part 107. | Newton: Seeks to regulate safe operations locally. | Preempted; intrudes on FAA's exclusive safety regulation and the Part 107 visual-line-of-sight/waiver scheme. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (federal regulation of traditionally federal fields may preempt state law)
- City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973) (state or local laws that infringe on federal aviation regulation are preempted)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (preemption analysis turns on statutory intent)
- French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989) (Congress intended to occupy field of pilot regulation related to air safety)
- Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (limitations on FAA authority re: model aircraft registration)
- Goodspeed Airport LLC v. East Haddam Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm'n, 634 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2011) (federal occupation of aviation safety field)
- US Airways, Inc. v. O'Donnell, 627 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2010) (federal regulation occupies aviation safety field)
- Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007) (same)