Singer v. City of Newton
284 F.Supp. 3d 125 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of federal preemption, local ordinances that regulate the operational aspects of unmanned aircraft systems, such as registration, altitude, and line-of-sight requirements, are invalid because they intrude upon a field pervasively regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and conflict with the federal objective of integrating drones into the national airspace.
Facts:
- Michael S. Singer, an FAA-certified pilot, owns and operates drones for non-hobbyist purposes in the City of Newton, Massachusetts.
- In August 2015, the Newton City Council began considering regulating drones, primarily to protect the privacy of its residents.
- On December 19, 2016, without obtaining approval from the FAA, the Newton City Council passed an ordinance regulating 'pilotless aircraft' weighing less than 55 pounds.
- The ordinance required all drone owners to register their aircraft with the Newton City Clerk.
- The ordinance prohibited flying a drone below 400 feet over private property without the property owner's express permission.
- The ordinance also banned drone flights over any city-owned property without prior permission from the city.
- Additionally, the ordinance forbade the operation of a drone 'beyond the visual line of sight of the Operator.'
Procedural Posture:
- Michael S. Singer filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Newton in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The City of Newton filed an answer to the complaint.
- The parties agreed to cross-file motions for summary judgment and proceed on a case stated basis.
- The District Court heard oral arguments on the cross-motions for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does federal law, including the FAA Modernization and Reform Act and associated FAA regulations, preempt a local ordinance that requires separate registration of unmanned aircraft and imposes operational restrictions on their altitude, location, and visual line of sight?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge William G. Young
Yes, federal law preempts the challenged sections of the local ordinance. Congress has established a comprehensive federal scheme for aviation that occupies the field of air safety and aircraft operations, and the local rules imposed by the City of Newton conflict with this federal framework. The registration requirement is preempted because the FAA has declared its authority over drone registration to be exclusive. The altitude and location restrictions are preempted because they create a de facto ban on drone flight, thwarting the congressional goal of integrating drones into the national airspace. Finally, the visual line-of-sight rule is preempted because it impermissibly intrudes into the field of aviation safety, which requires a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad preemptive power of federal law in the realm of aviation, extending it clearly to the new technology of unmanned aircraft systems. It serves as a significant check on the authority of state and local governments to create a patchwork of inconsistent drone regulations. The ruling clarifies that while municipalities may regulate in areas of traditional local police power such as land use, zoning, and privacy, they may not enact laws that govern aircraft operations in navigable airspace, including registration, flight paths, and safety protocols, as these areas are exclusively controlled by the FAA. This case provides a clear guideline for future disputes between local authorities and drone operators.
