Skip to content

National Press Photographers Association v. McCraw

Post categories

  1. Newsgathering

Case Name: National Press Photographers Association v. McCraw

Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Date Filed: Sept. 23, 2021

Background: Unmanned aerial vehicles — drones — play a growing role in journalism, offering a safer and less expensive way of obtaining images that might otherwise require the use of fixed-wing aircraft or a helicopter. Leveraging those strengths, reporters have made use of drone photography to gain unique vantage points on natural disasters, industrial accidents and major civic gatherings.

But Texas law imposes broad and vague restrictions on drone use, softened by exemptions for a grab bag of favored speakers — academics, students, insurers — but not the press. In 2019, the National Press Photographers Association and Texas Press Association filed suit, arguing that the regulations impose impermissible content-based and speaker-based limits on First Amendment activity.

The suit survived the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment were filed this August.

Our Position: Texas’s regulations discriminate against the news media, and the state’s justifications for that disparate treatment cannot survive the strict scrutiny that the First Amendment requires.

  • Drone photography provides an essential tool for modern newsgathering, capturing unique images of everything from hurricanes, floods and protests to “a simple sunrise.”
  • In allowing only a favored class — that excludes journalists — to engage in drone photography, the law impermissibly discriminates on the basis of speaker identity.

Quote: “​​These provisions, as written, permit a favored few to engage in comparatively unrestricted UAV photography, but forbid broadcasters and reporters — the public’s newsgathering arm — from doing the same.”

Related: RCFP’s This Week in Technology & Press Freedom newsletter covered the district court’s initial ruling denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss in this litigation late last year.