After filing its appeal in federal court, drone maker DJI is now laying out why it believes the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to blacklist the company is unlawful, harmful, and unsupported by evidence. In comments shared with DroneDJ, a DJI spokesperson said the company is “challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to prohibit DJI from marketing, selling, and importing new products into the United States.”
To recap, DJI has filed a petition for review in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contesting the FCC’s addition of DJI’s communications and video surveillance equipment to the agency’s “Covered List.” That filing, now formally docketed as Case 26-1029, asks the court to vacate and set aside the FCC’s December 22, 2025, ruling.
What DJI is arguing in court
According to DJI, the FCC’s decision is both “procedurally and substantively flawed.”
Under federal law, the FCC may place products on its Covered List only if they pose a national security threat. DJI says the agency “has never identified any threat associated with DJI or its products.”
In its statement to DroneDJ, the company says that despite “repeated efforts to engage with the government,” it “has never been given the chance to provide information to address or refute any concerns.”
That claim is echoed in the court petition itself, which argues that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority, failed to observe required procedures, and violated the Fifth Amendment.
Specifically, the filing asks the Ninth Circuit to “hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside” the FCC ruling.
In other words: DJI isn’t just asking for reconsideration. It’s asking a federal court to strike the decision down.
What the FCC ruling actually does
The FCC’s December 2025 ruling purports to add “all communications and video surveillance equipment” produced by DJI to the Covered List. According to the filing, that designation ensures that new DJI products within the scope of the ruling “can no longer be marketed, sold, or imported into the United States.”
DJI further argues that the FCC has used the ruling “as a justification to severely restrict” its ability to import existing products and even new products outside the scope of the decision.
That’s a key point. While the FCC has said the rules apply to future equipment authorizations, DJI claims the practical impact has been broader and more disruptive than advertised.
The company has also filed a motion for reconsideration before the FCC, and the agency has invited oppositions and replies to that motion — but DJI is simultaneously pursuing relief in federal court.
‘Great harm’ to American users
DJI’s argument isn’t just legal; it’s economic and practical. “The listing also causes great harm to DJI and its customers,” the spokesperson told DroneDJ. The decision, the company says, “carelessly restricts DJI’s business in the US and summarily denies US customers access to its latest technology, while users elsewhere continue to benefit.”
DJI specifically points to Americans across industries — “small business owners, public safety officers, farmers, and creators” — who rely on its tools “to make a living and save lives.”
This framing is deliberate. DJI is positioning the fight not just as a corporate dispute, but as an issue affecting American drone pilots, agricultural operators, first responders, and creative professionals.
The company says it filed the petition not only to protect its own business, but also “American consumers who rely on its products.”
The constitutional angle and DJI’s security stance
One of the most consequential elements of DJI’s petition is its constitutional claim.
The filing argues that the FCC’s actions violated the Fifth Amendment — a serious allegation that centers on due process. DJI contends it was placed on the Covered List without being given an adequate opportunity to respond to or refute unspecified national security concerns.
For US courts, that procedural question may prove just as important as the national security debate itself. Did the FCC follow the statutory requirements laid out by Congress? Did it provide sufficient explanation and evidence? Did DJI receive the process it was due? Those are the questions the Ninth Circuit will now examine.
DJI also emphasized that it “takes the security of its products very seriously.” The company says it has long advocated for independent, objective review of its products and remains committed to engaging “constructively with the FCC and other stakeholders.”
That message is clearly aimed at US regulators and policymakers — a signal that DJI is not walking away from the American market quietly. Instead, it’s choosing to fight — in court, in regulatory proceedings, and in the public arena.
What happens next?
Now the case enters the appellate phase. The FCC will have an opportunity to respond. Briefing schedules will follow. And potentially, oral arguments could be held later this year. The outcome could shape the future of drone policy in the United States.
If the court sides with DJI, it could limit the FCC’s authority to blacklist foreign manufacturers without detailed public evidence. If the FCC prevails, the decision could solidify a broader precedent for restricting foreign-made communications equipment on national security grounds.
Either way, the stakes are enormous, not just for DJI, but for the half-million-plus commercial drone pilots and thousands of agencies and businesses that rely on its ecosystem. For now, DJI’s message is clear: It believes the FCC acted unlawfully, without evidence, and without giving the company its day in court. And now, it’s demanding exactly that.
More: DJI Flip: The no-stress drone is now cheaper
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments