On February 20, 2026, DJI filed a petition in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to add foreign-manufactured drones to its “Covered List.” That listing effectively blocks new equipment authorizations for DJI products in America.
This isn’t a PR move. It’s a federal lawsuit, and what the court decides could reshape who gets to fly what in American airspace for years.
How We Got Here: The FCC’s December Decision
In December 2025, the FCC added all foreign-manufactured drones to its Covered List, the same list that includes Huawei and ZTE telecommunications equipment deemed to pose national security risks. The practical effect was immediate: no new FCC equipment authorizations for foreign drone manufacturers, which means no new DJI models can legally enter the US market.
Products that received FCC approval before December 22, 2025 remain legal to sell and operate. The DJI Avata 360 got its FCC approval on November 19, 2025, so it’s grandfathered in. But the pipeline for future DJI products in the US was cut off that day.
The decision hit the industry without warning. No consultation period. No chance for affected manufacturers to submit evidence or rebut concerns. No specific finding against any particular product. Just a blanket listing.
DJI’s Three Core Arguments
In its Ninth Circuit petition, DJI advances three arguments. Understanding them is the only way to assess whether this lawsuit has merit.
1. No Specific Threat Was Ever Identified
DJI argues that the FCC never identified a concrete security threat posed by DJI products specifically. The Covered List was designed for telecommunications equipment with documented national security concerns. The FCC’s findings against Huawei, for example, involved specific allegations about Chinese government access to communications infrastructure.
No equivalent finding exists for DJI drones. There is no public record of DJI hardware being used to compromise US security infrastructure. The listing, DJI says, was based on broad country-of-origin concerns rather than any product-specific analysis. Framing that as a national security measure requires at minimum showing that the threat is real and product-specific.
2. Due Process Was Denied
This is DJI’s strongest procedural argument. The company says it was never given the opportunity to respond to the FCC’s concerns, submit evidence, or participate in any administrative process before being added to the Covered List. US administrative law generally requires that affected parties have some chance to be heard before the government takes an action that causes them substantial harm.
DJI global policy head Adam Welsh reportedly offered the US Defense Secretary a full transparency arrangement and security audit in December 2025, an offer DJI says was ignored rather than engaged with. Whether courts treat this as a due process violation will be a central question.
3. Substantial Economic Harm
The numbers DJI puts forward here are hard to dismiss. A Pilot Institute survey of 8,056 drone operators found that 96.7% use DJI products. More pointedly, 43.4% of those operators said losing access to DJI products would be “potentially business-ending.”
The industries affected are wide: farmers using DJI agricultural drones for precision spraying; police and fire departments using them for search and rescue; construction and surveying companies; film and TV production; infrastructure inspection teams. These aren’t hobbyists. They’re businesses and agencies built on DJI’s reliability and support network.
The economic harm argument is designed to show the FCC’s action wasn’t a narrowly targeted response to a specific threat. It was a blunt instrument with cascading damage across American industries.
The FCC’s Position and Its Strength in Court
Here’s where candour is necessary: national security cases are hard to win in federal court. Courts have historically deferred to executive branch agencies and to Congressional mandates when national security is invoked. The FCC’s Covered List authority comes from the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, which gives the Commission broad power to designate risky equipment.
DJI also faces the political reality that the designation of Chinese technology companies as security risks has genuine bipartisan support in Congress. The extension of that logic to Chinese drone manufacturers fits a coherent, if contested, policy framework.
DJI’s due process argument has genuine legal weight, but courts have sometimes found that national security concerns can justify departures from standard administrative procedure. Whether the Ninth Circuit agrees will likely depend on how hard the judges look at the FCC’s factual basis, not just its authority to act.
What the FCC May Be Doing Beyond Its Own Ruling
One of DJI’s sharper claims is that the FCC is already exceeding what its own December ruling covers, allegedly restricting imports and shipments that should be grandfathered under pre-December authorization rules. If that’s true, DJI has grounds to seek interim injunctive relief while the broader case plays out. Courts can stop agencies from taking actions that exceed their statutory authority even while litigation continues.
This grandfathering argument may be DJI’s fastest path to court relief. Showing that the FCC’s implementation overshoots the ruling itself is a more tractable legal argument than relitigating whether the FCC had authority to list them at all.
Who Gets Hurt While This Plays Out
Federal appellate cases don’t resolve quickly. The Ninth Circuit could take one to two years to rule, and any decision could be appealed further. In the meantime:
- Farmers using DJI agricultural drones will face a narrowing market for new equipment as existing models age out.
- Public safety agencies, including police, fire, and search and rescue, that depend on DJI’s reliability will find upgrade paths shrinking.
- Independent filmmakers and commercial video producers will see the gap between DJI’s innovation cycle and what’s available in the US widen over time.
- Survey and inspection companies built on DJI’s mapping platforms face uncertainty about future software and hardware updates.
- Competitors, primarily US-based Skydio, will see increased demand they may not be equipped to meet at DJI’s scale and price point.
A Balanced Read on the Outcome
DJI’s lawsuit isn’t frivolous. The due process argument has real legal weight. The economic harm data is well-documented. The Ninth Circuit has a track record of scrutinising agency overreach and is not a rubber stamp court.
But the national security framework is powerful, the political climate isn’t friendly to Chinese technology companies right now, and administrative deference gives agencies significant latitude when acting within statutory authority. DJI’s best realistic outcome may not be a full reversal of the Covered List designation. It may be narrower injunctive relief preventing the FCC from exceeding what the December ruling actually authorised.
The honest forecast: this takes years. The outcome is genuinely uncertain. US drone operators should be planning for a market that looks structurally different in 2027 and 2028 than it does today. Don’t wait for the courts to sort it out before thinking about what your upgrade path looks like.
Key Takeaways
- The FCC’s December 2025 decision blocked new DJI equipment authorizations in the US. Products already approved remain legal to buy and operate.
- DJI filed a federal petition in the Ninth Circuit on February 20, 2026, arguing the ban lacks specific evidence, violates due process, and causes massive economic harm.
- The due process argument is DJI’s strongest legal angle. National security deference is the FCC’s strongest shield.
- DJI’s grandfathering argument, that the FCC is exceeding its own ruling, may be the fastest path to interim court relief.
- For US drone operators: products with pre-December 22 FCC approval, including the Avata 360, are legal to buy and operate.
- Plan for a prolonged legal process. This is not resolving in months.