DJI has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the FCC’s decision to ban its products from the U.S. market, arguing the agency exceeded its authority and violated the Fifth Amendment when it added DJI’s drones to the Covered List without ever identifying a specific security threat.
In December 2025, the Federal Communication Commission added all foreign-manufactured drones and drone components to its “Covered List” – effectively banning them from receiving the equipment authorizations required to legally operate in the United States. The news has upset the majority of drone pilots, as well as even some other American drone companies.
I quickly speculated that many companies, lobbyists and politicians would push back on the legality of such a ban. And I was right. This month, DJI filed a lawsuit challenging the FCC’s decision to add us to the Covered List.
The petition, filed February 20, 2026 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, marks the beginning of what could be a years-long legal battle over whether the government’s drone restrictions are justified national security policy or unconstitutional overreach. Here’s what you need to know about DJI’s lawsuit against the FCC:
DJI’s 3 main arguments
1. The FCC never identified an actual threat
“The FCC can add products to the Covered List only when they present a national security threat, yet it has never identified any threat associated with DJI or its products,” a DJI spokesperson told The Drone Girl in a prepared statement.
After years of government scrutiny, multiple security reviews, and repeated Congressional hearings, no one has publicly demonstrated that DJI drones have actually been used to spy on Americans or compromise national security. The FCC relied on a December 21 National Security Determination that concluded foreign-made drones posed “unacceptable risks” without providing specific evidence about DJI’s products.
2. DJI was denied due process
“Despite repeated efforts to engage with the government, DJI has never been given the chance to provide information to address or refute any concerns,” the spokesperson said.
DJI has publicly asked for security audits for years. Adam Welsh, DJI’s head of global policy, wrote to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December offering to “be open and transparent, and provide you with the necessary information to complete a thorough review.”
Instead, the FCC issued a ruling based on an interagency determination without giving DJI an opportunity to respond. The petition states that “the FCC exceeded its statutory authority, failed to observe statutorily required procedures, and violated the Fifth Amendment when it purported to add DJI’s products to the Covered List.”
3. The ban causes substantial harm
“The listing causes great harm to DJI and its customers,” the spokesperson said. “It carelessly restricts DJI’s business in the U.S. and summarily denies U.S. customers access to its latest technology, while users elsewhere continue to benefit.”
“Americans across industries—including small business owners, public safety officers, farmers, and creators—have been and will continue to be affected, losing access to the tools they rely on to make a living and save lives.”
A Pilot Institute survey of 8,056 drone operators supports this: 43.4% said losing access to new DJI drones would have a “potentially business-ending impact,” and 96.7% of operators currently use DJI products.
The FCC is going beyond the ruling
The petition states that “The FCC has also used the Ruling as a justification to severely restrict DJI’s ability to import its existing products, as well as new products outside the scope of the Ruling, into the United States.”
The FCC ban technically only prevents NEW models from getting equipment authorizations. Existing products with pre-December 22 authorization should remain legal, which include anticipated new drones like the DJI Avata 360.
But according to DJI, the FCC is restricting imports beyond what the order requires — potentially affecting drones that were supposed to be grandfathered in.
DJI’s legal arguments
DJI’s petition makes three specific claims. All of the below are solid legal hooks, though national security cases typically receive substantial deference from courts. Are are those three claims.
The FCC exceeded its statutory authority — DJI argues the FCC didn’t establish that DJI products actually pose national security threats.
The government has not been able to provide actual evidence of DJI drones being used for espionage or posing demonstrated security threats. DJI’s lawsuit forces the government to either produce this evidence in court or admit it doesn’t exist.
The FCC failed to follow required procedures — Administrative law requires agencies to provide reasoned explanations, consider relevant factors, and give affected parties notice and opportunity to respond.
The FCC violated the Fifth Amendment — The Due Process Clause requires fair procedures before the government significantly restricts property rights. DJI’s Fifth Amendment claim is particularly interesting. The Due Process Clause requires fair procedures before government significantly restricts property interests, but national security cases get special deference. Courts rarely second-guess executive branch security determinations, especially regarding foreign companies.
The question: Is Due Process protection strong enough to require a hearing even in national security cases? Or does national security deference trump procedural protections?
Going past drones, the way the court rules on this will affects how the U.S. government restricts other foreign technology products in the future.
So what’s next?
The petition requests the Ninth Circuit “hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Ruling.” DJI wants the court to throw out the FCC’s December 22 ruling entirely. DJI has also filed a motion for reconsideration with the FCC, which has invited oppositions and replies.
Here’s what likely happens next:
- Short term (next few months): Government responds, possible preliminary injunction request, briefing period
- Medium term (6-18 months): Oral arguments, court decision, possible appeals
- Long term (1-3 years): Final resolution at Ninth Circuit, en banc review, or Supreme Court — or settlement before conclusion
DJI’s lawsuit comes amid developments suggesting the ban is more flexible than presented, which include:
- January 7: FCC added exemptions for drones meeting 65% domestic content (expiring January 1, 2027).
- January 8: Commerce Department withdrew its separate drone restrictions, reportedly to avoid complicating Trump-Xi trade negotiations.
- Ongoing: Companies can apply for “Conditional Approvals”.
This pattern suggests restrictions are being treated as negotiable trade policy rather than urgent security imperatives — which supports DJI’s argument that the “unacceptable risk” determination lacks factual foundation.
Here are a few possible outcomes for drone pilots:
- Best case: The court invalidates the ruling, restoring market access
- Good case: The court requires proper procedures, creating delay and better standards
- Moderate case: The lawsuit pressures negotiated settlement with security audits instead of blanket ban
- Even losing might help: A years-long legal battle creates space for political changes or trade negotiations
What drone pilots should do now
DJI’s lawsuit doesn’t immediately change anything for drone pilots.
Remember, current DJI drones are not banned. All drones that are approved for sale in the U.S. (yes, meaning anything available on Amazon, B&H, Best Buy or other major retailers…or even used from other pilots), can still legally be bought and sold. Products approved before December 22 can still be sold.
It’s just that future DJI models won’t be able to get equipment authorization under this current state.
And don’t give up hope, either. The Trump administration has shown willingness to reverse policies quickly. A “great deal” with China could include market access for DJI with enhanced security requirements.
DJI has legitimate procedural arguments. After years of requesting security audits, they got banned without a hearing based on vague determinations that don’t identify specific threats.
But DJI faces an uphill battle. Courts give enormous deference to executive national security determinations. The government will argue that requiring detailed public evidence would compromise intelligence sources and methods.
My prediction: The Ninth Circuit likely won’t overturn the ban outright. They might require better procedures or more specific justifications, leading to a modified approach — security audits, enhanced monitoring, data localization requirements — rather than blanket prohibition.
More likely than a clean court victory? I think DJI’s lawsuit will create enough uncertainty and delay that it gets resolved through trade negotiations rather than judicial decision.
Here’s what DJI said in an emailed statement after filing the lawsuit: “DJI takes the security of its products very seriously. The company has long advocated for independent, objective review of its products. As part of our commitment to the U.S. market and our customers across numerous industries, we will continue to engage constructively with the FCC and other stakeholders.”
The post DJI sues FCC over drone ban: here’s DJI’s argument appeared first on The Drone Girl.