Holiday periods bring more people, more special events, and more temptation to launch small drones to capture the moment. For airport operators and local officials the result is predictable anxiety: an uptick in reports of near-misses, unauthorized flights, and public pressure to impose blanket bans. The legal reality is straightforward but often misunderstood. Federal law vests exclusive sovereignty and control of the national airspace in the United States with the federal government, and the Federal Aviation Administration has primary authority over flight operations and the assignment of airspace. This statutory framework limits what airports and localities can lawfully do to prohibit flights simply because they dislike them.
That does not mean airports are powerless. Airport authorities legitimately control their own property and operations. They may prohibit takeoffs and landings from airport property, deny access to airport property to anyone who would launch a drone, and adopt rules governing the use of airport facilities and vehicle access. Those property and access controls are valuable, enforceable tools to limit the most dangerous behavior: launching multi-rotors adjacent to terminals, runways, ramps, and other critical infrastructure. Local police and airport security can also enforce state and municipal laws that address trespass, reckless endangerment, and other conventional crimes when drone operations cross those lines. The federal preemption principle, however, means a local or airport ordinance cannot purport to regulate where a drone may fly in navigable airspace if the FAA permits that flight.
When safety or security demands a direct restriction on flights over a holiday event or airport, the FAA has tools for that purpose. The agency can issue Temporary Flight Restrictions and publish NOTAMs that prohibit or restrict aircraft, including drones, within a defined volume of airspace for a limited time. Airports that face credible threats or special-event security needs should coordinate early with the FAA and request appropriate airspace action rather than try to craft local bans that risk preemption and confusion. The TFR process is the established legal path to keep aircraft off the approaches, taxiways, and terminal vicinities when necessary.
Enforcement and compliance are evolving practical challenges. The FAA has strengthened Remote Identification and enforcement posture in 2024, ending discretionary leniency and signaling that operators who cannot meet Remote ID requirements may face fines or certificate actions. Remote ID and the LAANC authorization systems help identify operators and deny access to controlled airspace in near-real time. Airport operators who invest in signage, public outreach, and a clear on-property ban can use Remote ID detections and FAA processes to support enforcement actions and referrals. But airports cannot rely on local ordinances alone to stop flights in surrounding airspace where FAA rules allow operations.
Practical examples show how this plays out. Large events such as professional sports, parades, and other mass gatherings are routinely protected by FAA-issued TFRs and coordinated with law enforcement and federal partners. Airports and authorities can ask for TFRs around holiday events when the public safety case is strong; criminal penalties and civil sanctions can follow for operators who violate those federal restrictions. Conversely, well-intentioned municipal drone ordinances that tried to ban flying over wide swaths of a city have led to enforcement confusion and public pushback because they attempted to regulate in an area preempted by federal law. That confusion underscores why coordination with the FAA is the safer legal route.
What should airport authorities do this holiday season to reduce risk and remain on solid legal ground? First, adopt and publicize a clear on-property prohibition against launching or landing drones without prior authorization. Use lease terms, tenant rules, and aeronautical operations orders to make expectations enforceable. Second, coordinate with the FAA early when planning for events or when there are credible security concerns; request a TFR when appropriate and work with FAA to publicize the NOTAM. Third, invest in detection, identification, and response plans that integrate airport police, local law enforcement, TSA, and federal partners; detection without legal process is only intelligence, not enforcement. Fourth, use Remote ID, LAANC, and FAA reporting channels to help identify repeat offenders and refer cases for FAA enforcement. Finally, avoid overbroad municipal ordinances that purport to regulate navigable airspace; they invite litigation and divert enforcement resources.
Policy gaps remain. The FAA is improving tools and enforcement, but airports still lack a uniform, affordable approach to respond to persistent incursions short of a TFR. Detection systems and counter-UAS technologies raise legal and privacy issues, and authorities must calibrate responses so they do not themselves create new safety hazards. State legislatures and Congress could help by clarifying the interaction between airport property controls, criminal statutes, and federal aviation preemption, and by authorizing funding for detection and mitigation systems at high-risk airports. Until then, airports should rely on tried-and-true legal levers: property control, FAA coordination for airspace restrictions, and conventional criminal and civil enforcement where appropriate.
Bottom line: if your airport is considering a holiday drone ban, make the ban about your property and operations, not about trying to rewrite who may fly over the sky. Coordinate with the FAA to control the airspace when needed, use established reporting and Remote ID tools, and build community outreach so the public understands both the legal limits and the safety rationale. That approach keeps airports on firm legal footing and gives the traveling public the best chance of a safe, incident-free holiday season.