{"id":11129,"date":"2022-04-11T11:55:15","date_gmt":"2022-04-11T16:55:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=11129"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:14:42","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:14:42","slug":"federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Texas federal judge has stricken down the vast majority of a Texas drone law as unconstitutional.\u00a0 [Read Order here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

\"\"

TAMU AgriLife photo by Kay Ledbetter<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The “Use of Unmanned Aircraft” statute was passed in 2013.\u00a0 To read a prior blog post reviewing the statute in detail, click here<\/a>.\u00a0 This lawsuit breaks the challenged provisions into two categories: Surveillance Provisions and No-Fly Provisions.<\/p>\n

The Surveillance Provisions (Texas Government Code Sections 423.002, .003, .004, and .005) impose criminal and civil penalties for anyone using a drone to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property with the intent to “conduct surveillance” on the individual or property.\u00a0 See <\/em>Texas Government Code Section 423.003.\u00a0 The statute exempts a number of uses from the provisions of the statute including professional or scholarly research, satellite mapping, and real estate agents, for example.\u00a0 See<\/em> Texas Government Code Section 423.002.\u00a0 Importantly, newsgathering is not an exempted use, meaning the statutory prohibitions apply to newsgathering activities.<\/p>\n

The No-Fly Provisions (Texas Government Code Sections 423.0045 and 423.0046) impose criminal penalties by making it unlawful to fly a drone over a correctional facility, detention facility, critical infrastructure facility, or sports venue.\u00a0 Of note for the ag industry, in 2017, the statute was amended to include confined animal feeding operations to the definition of “critical infrastructure facilities.”\u00a0 [Read blog post here<\/a>.]\u00a0 The No-Fly Provisions also contain exemptions for certain uses, including those with a “commercial purpose.”\u00a0 There is no exemption for newsgathering.<\/p>\n

Lawsuit<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two media organizations (National Press Photographers Association & Texas Press Association) and an individual journalist filed suit in Texas federal court.\u00a0 The journalist is a Texas reporter who owns a drone and is certified to operate it by the FAA.\u00a0 He claims the Texas Use of Unmanned Aircraft statute has chilled his newsgathering because he is concerned about liability.\u00a0 He says he has forgone opportunities to use the drone in reporting on multiple stories. The National Press Photographers Association (NPP)\u00a0 is a national organization representing journalists, including 300 members in Texas.\u00a0 Their members regularly use drones for newsgathering, and their reporting efforts have been chilled by the statute.\u00a0 The Texas Press Association (TPA) has more than 400 newspaper members across Texas.\u00a0 They allege some members have avoided using drone photography due to the statute.\u00a0 Members of both organizations reported having threats of prosecution when using drones or have had newspapers decline to carry drone footage because of the statute.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs brought suit against the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, Chief of the Texas Highway Patrol, and the District Attorney of Hays County.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs claim the statute violates the First Amendment. In particular, they argue the Surveillance Provisions are improper content-based and speaker-based restrictions and well as being overly broad and unconstitutionally vague.\u00a0 Plaintiffs argue the No-Fly Provisions\u00a0 are content-based discrimination and they are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.<\/p>\n

Both the Plaintiffs and Defendants filed motions for summary judgment.\u00a0 This means both parties believe there are no genuine disputes over factual issues and, as such, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u00a0 In other words, the parties do not believe the court needs to decide facts, but merely determine whether the statute is lawful or not.<\/p>\n

Order<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judge Pitman, who serves on the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, issued an Order on March 28, 2022 striking down the majority of the statute as unconstitutional. [Read Order here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

Standing<\/span><\/p>\n

First, the Judge addressed the issue of standing.\u00a0 The Constitution requires a plaintiff to meet certain criteria to bring a lawsuit.\u00a0 In particular, a plaintiff must: (1) suffer an injury in fact; (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and (3) it can likely be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.\u00a0 Here, the Defendants challenged standing under each element.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs argued the journalist meets the requirements for individual standing and the associations meet the requirements for associational standing.<\/p>\n

Injury in Fact<\/em><\/p>\n

Defendants claimed the individual journalist cannot show injury because he has not personally been threatened with or subject to enforcement of the statute.\u00a0 However, the court explained, a plaintiff need not show they will be punished under a law, but only that it caused the plaintiff to reasonably self-censor speech.\u00a0 A person is not required to be criminally prosecuted in order to challenge law.\u00a0 Here, the journalist claimed he stopped using his drone for newsgathering for fear of facing liability under the statute.\u00a0 Similarly, the NPPA and TPA both had members who have similarly limited drone use because of the statute.\u00a0 The court found this sufficient to prove injury in fact.<\/p>\n

Traceability<\/em><\/p>\n

Defendants claimed two of them lack prosecution authority under the statute, and the one who has that authority has never threatened to use it.\u00a0 The court explained this is irrelevant, because all three have the power and duty to enforce the statute.\u00a0 This satisfied the traceability requirement.<\/p>\n

Redressability<\/em><\/p>\n

Redressability requires a plaintiff show that a favorable decision in a lawsuit will relieve plaintiff’s injury.\u00a0 Here, a declaratory judgment would allow the Plaintiffs to exercise their First Amendment rights by removing the fear of prosecution under the statute.\u00a0 This requirement was met.<\/p>\n

Associational<\/em> Standing<\/p>\n

Finally, the court also found both the NPPA and TPA meet the requirements for organizational standing, meaning they are able to bring suit on behalf of their members.\u00a0 Members could have brought the suit themselves given the chilling effect of the law, both organizations seek to vindicate interests germane to their purpose, and the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statute on its face does not require individual members to participate.<\/p>\n

Immunity<\/span><\/p>\n

Next, the Defendants argued they are protected from suit because of sovereign immunity.\u00a0 The Eleventh Amendment typically prohibits federal lawsuits against a state, state agency, or a state official in his or her individual capacity unless that immunity is waived by the state or Congress has abrogated it.\u00a0 Here, the\u00a0Ex Parte Young<\/em> exception to sovereign immunity allowed the suit to go forward.\u00a0 This rule essentially allows lawsuits against state officials if the suit is seeking prospective relieve for ongoing federal violations.\u00a0 Here, there is the potential of the Defendants continuing to enforce the statute going forward, and the court found possibility of enforcement sufficient to prove the exception to sovereign immunity and allow the case to go forward.<\/p>\n

First Amendment<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally getting to the meat of the analysis, the court turned to the First Amendment.<\/p>\n

Is drone photojournalism covered by the First Amendment?<\/em><\/p>\n

Initially, the court determined drone photojournalism is a covered activity.\u00a0 Defendants argued the right to use a drone to gather and disseminate news is not contained in the First Amendment.\u00a0 The court disagreed.\u00a0 “The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, and the right to read.”\u00a0 There is no distinction between the speech and the process of creating the form of speech such as taking photographs or videos.\u00a0 “The process of creating the images finds just as much protection in the First Amendment as the images themselves do.”\u00a0 Further, although Defendants are correct the Framers did not contemplate drones when drafting the Constitution, “neither did the Framers anticipate photography in any form, much less video or internet communications, all of which are today covered by the First Amendment.”\u00a0 Thus, the First Amendment applies.<\/p>\n

What level of scrutiny applies?<\/em><\/p>\n

Next, the court determined the statute’s provisions are subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.\u00a0 The court found both the Surveillance and No-Fly Provisions are content-based, as they differentiate based on the contents and purposes of the images. Because the statute’s provisions are content-based, this means that in order for them to be permissible, the State must show they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.<\/p>\n

Does the statute survive strict scrutiny?<\/em><\/p>\n

The court then applied the strict scrutiny test to the statutory provisions.\u00a0 Content-based restrictions are presumptively invalid unless the State can show they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.\u00a0 The restrictions must be “actually necessary” in order to be upheld.<\/p>\n

First, the court looked at whether the statutory provisions are actually necessary to achieve the State’s interest in protecting private property, individual privacy, and the safety of critical infrastructure facilities.\u00a0 In other words, are there any alternative means to achieve the state’s interests besides these statutory provisions?\u00a0 Here, the court found there were alternative means including a variety of tools and statutes such as those applying to criminal trespass, recording and voyeurism, and tort claims.<\/p>\n

Second, the court found the Defendants failed to prove the provisions were narrowly tailored to address the State’s interests because the statute is both over inclusive and under inclusive.\u00a0 Specifically, both provisions are over inclusive because they unnecessarily prohibit protected expression.\u00a0 Even if a journalist is standing on public property, he violates the law by documenting private real property despite the fact that documenting this in another manner (like with a regular camera) would be legal.\u00a0 \u00a0The provisions are also under inclusive based on their exceptions for other uses of drones that pose the same risks as journalism uses would.\u00a0 For example, commercial purposes are allowed under the No-Fly Provisions, but there is no explanation of why newsgathering by drone poses threats different than commercial purposes.<\/p>\n

Based on this, Judge Pitman found the statute violated the First Amendment.<\/p>\n

Vagueness<\/span><\/p>\n

Additionally, Plaintiffs claim the statute is unconstitutionally vague.\u00a0 Although the court need not address this issue having already deemed the statute unconstitutional under the First Amendment, Judge Pitman did so to “avoid any confusion.”\u00a0 He found the terms “surveillance” and “commercial purposes” both unconstitutionally vague.\u00a0 Neither were defined in the statute, making it impossible for a person to know whether their intention constitutes a prohibited activity.<\/p>\n

What Happens Next?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Defendants could appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but for now, this decision is in effect. The challenged provisions of the statute (Sections 423.002, .003, .004, .005, .0045, and .0046) are now stricken and inapplicable.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the Texas Legislature could propose an amended version of the statute in the next session seeking to remedy the issues the court has identified with this version.<\/p>\n

Why This Matters?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Over the past several years, I have gotten a number of calls from people concerned about drones flying over their private property. This was the only statute in Texas expressly addressing that issue.\u00a0 There may still be other legal options or protections (criminal or civil trespass, for example), but the protections this statute offered private landowners and critical infrastructure facilities like feedlots or dairies no longer exist.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, a number of other states also have drone privacy statutes.\u00a0 Could this opinion lead to lawsuits in other states making similar challenges?\u00a0 Time will tell.\u00a0 The National Agricultural Law Center has a compilation of drone privacy statues around the country.\u00a0 Click here<\/a> to find out if there is a law in your state.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Texas federal judge has stricken down the vast majority of a Texas drone law as unconstitutional.\u00a0 [Read Order here.] Background The “Use of Unmanned Aircraft” statute was passed in 2013.\u00a0 To read a prior blog post reviewing the statute in detail, click here.\u00a0 This lawsuit breaks the challenged provisions into two categories: Surveillance Provisions and No-Fly Provisions. The Surveillance Provisions (Texas Government Code Sections 423.002, .003, .004, and .005) impose criminal and civil penalties for anyone using a drone to capture an image of an individual or… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2444,"featured_media":11144,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[46],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-drones"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nFederal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law - Texas Agriculture Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A Texas federal judge has stricken down the vast majority of a Texas drone law as unconstitutional.\u00a0 [Read Order here.] Background The “Use of Unmanned Aircraft” statute was passed in 2013.\u00a0 To read a prior blog post reviewing the statute in detail, click here.\u00a0 This lawsuit breaks the challenged provisions into two categories: Surveillance Provisions and No-Fly Provisions. The Surveillance Provisions (Texas Government Code Sections 423.002, .003, .004, and .005) impose criminal and civil penalties for anyone using a drone to capture an image of an individual or... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-04-11T16:55:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-17T20:14:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/04\/Drone.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"750\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"499\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\"},\"headline\":\"Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-11T16:55:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:14:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1827,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/Drone.png\",\"articleSection\":[\"Drones\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/\",\"name\":\"Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/Drone.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-11T16:55:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:14:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/Drone.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/Drone.png\",\"width\":750,\"height\":499},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/11\\\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"description\":\"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/texasaglaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/tiffdowell\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\",\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/author\\\/tiffany-dowell\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law - Texas Agriculture Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"A Texas federal judge has stricken down the vast majority of a Texas drone law as unconstitutional.\u00a0 [Read Order here.] Background The “Use of Unmanned Aircraft” statute was passed in 2013.\u00a0 To read a prior blog post reviewing the statute in detail, click here.\u00a0 This lawsuit breaks the challenged provisions into two categories: Surveillance Provisions and No-Fly Provisions. The Surveillance Provisions (Texas Government Code Sections 423.002, .003, .004, and .005) impose criminal and civil penalties for anyone using a drone to capture an image of an individual or... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2022-04-11T16:55:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-17T20:14:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":750,"height":499,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/04\/Drone.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"tiffany.dowell","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@tiffdowell","twitter_site":"@tiffdowell","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"tiffany.dowell","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowell","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73"},"headline":"Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law","datePublished":"2022-04-11T16:55:15+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:14:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/"},"wordCount":1827,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/04\/Drone.png","articleSection":["Drones"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/","name":"Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/04\/Drone.png","datePublished":"2022-04-11T16:55:15+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:14:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/04\/Drone.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/04\/Drone.png","width":750,"height":499},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/11\/federal-court-strikes-down-texas-drone-law\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","description":"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"Texas Agriculture Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","https:\/\/x.com\/tiffdowell","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73","name":"tiffany.dowell","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/author\/tiffany-dowell\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2444"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11129\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11144"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}