DJI hired Biden’s former Solicitor General and a former FCC enforcement chief to fight the drone ban

Everyone covered the lawsuit. Almost nobody reported on what the filing actually says. The actual court document DJI submitted to the Ninth Circuit on February 20 reveals something far more interesting than the company’s legal arguments: it reveals who DJI hired to make them.

The petition (Case No. 26-1029) is signed by two attorneys at Cooley LLP whose combined credentials read like a Washington power play designed to send a very specific message to the FCC. We obtained and reviewed the full four-page petition filed with the court.

• The Signal: DJI retained Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the 48th Solicitor General of the United States under President Biden, and Travis LeBlanc, former Chief of the FCC’s own Enforcement Bureau, to challenge the FCC’s Covered List designation.
• What the petition reveals: The FCC is already restricting imports of DJI’s existing products, not just new ones. DJI has also filed a separate motion for reconsideration directly with the FCC.
• The constitutional claim: DJI is arguing the FCC violated the Fifth Amendment by adding its products to the Covered List without due process.

Elizabeth Prelogar argued the government’s biggest cases for four years, now she’s arguing against it

Elizabeth Prelogar served as the 48th Solicitor General of the United States from 2021 to 2025, the second woman to ever hold the position and the person responsible for conducting and supervising all Supreme Court litigation on behalf of the federal government. She argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court during her tenure, including disputes over abortion access, ghost gun regulations, and transgender rights. She clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Elena Kagan, and Judge Merrick Garland on the D.C. Circuit.

Time Magazine put her on the TIME100 Next list in 2024. Law360 called her a “once-in-a-generation talent.” Washingtonian magazine listed her as one of Washington’s Most Powerful Women. She rejoined Cooley LLP in August 2025 to lead its Supreme Court and appellate practice group.

Now she’s using that experience against the government she represented for four years. DJI did not hire a telecom specialist or a trade lawyer. They hired the person who knows exactly how federal agencies defend their actions in court, because she used to be the one doing the defending.

Travis LeBlanc ran the FCC’s enforcement division, now he’s suing the FCC

Travis LeBlanc was Chief of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau during the Obama administration, where he led the agency’s largest bureau and its 25 field offices, running hundreds of enforcement actions involving consumer protection, unfair competition, and regulatory compliance. He served on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), an independent federal agency, after receiving a presidential nomination and unanimous Senate confirmation in 2019. The Trump administration removed him and the other Democratic board members in January 2025.

Before joining Cooley, LeBlanc served as a senior adviser to then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris and worked in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. He clerked for Judge Stephen Reinhardt on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That’s the same court where DJI just filed this petition.

A former FCC enforcement chief is now challenging the FCC’s authority over his client. A former Ninth Circuit clerk is filing in the court where he once worked. These are not accidental choices.

The petition reveals the FCC is already restricting existing DJI products

The four-page filing contains a claim that no news outlet has highlighted and that contradicts the industry’s current understanding of how the ban works: according to DJI, the FCC is not just blocking new products but is actively restricting imports of existing ones too. DJI states that the FCC “has also used the Ruling as a justification to severely restrict DJI’s ability to import its existing products, as well as new products outside the scope of the Ruling, into the United States.”

That language is significant. The FCC’s public messaging since December 22 has repeatedly emphasized that previously authorized drones remain legal. The agency said its action “will only apply to future drone imports and sales, not those that have already been sold or are in use.” But DJI’s petition tells a different story, one where the FCC is using the Covered List as grounds to interfere with imports of products that already have authorization.

We reported in December that Customs and Border Protection was already flagging DJI shipments, including the Air 3S, for additional review. DJI’s petition confirms this isn’t an isolated customs issue. It’s the FCC weaponizing the Covered List beyond its stated scope.

DJI is fighting on three legal fronts, not two

The petition discloses that DJI has filed a separate motion for reconsideration directly with the FCC, and the agency has already invited oppositions and replies to that motion (91 Fed. Reg. 5245, published February 5, 2026). This means DJI is running three simultaneous legal challenges against the U.S. government:

1. Ninth Circuit petition (Case 26-1029): Challenges the FCC’s December 22 Covered List designation. Filed February 20, 2026. DJI argues the FCC exceeded its statutory authority, failed to follow required procedures, and violated the Fifth Amendment.

2. FCC reconsideration motion: Filed directly with the FCC, asking the agency to reverse its own ruling. The FCC published notice in the Federal Register on February 5, inviting public comment. This is a parallel administrative track.

3. D.C. Circuit appeal: Challenges the Pentagon’s Section 1260H “Chinese Military Company” designation. DJI filed this appeal in October 2025, and oral arguments took place on February 6, 2026. A ruling could come at any time.

Running three legal challenges simultaneously across two federal circuits and one administrative proceeding is expensive and resource-intensive. It signals DJI is all-in on the U.S. market.

The Fifth Amendment argument is DJI’s sharpest weapon

DJI’s petition asks the Ninth Circuit to review the FCC ruling on the ground that the agency “exceeded its statutory authority, failed to observe statutorily required procedures, and violated the Fifth Amendment when it purported to add DJI’s products to the Covered List.” The company asks the court to “hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Ruling.”

The Fifth Amendment claim is the most aggressive argument in the petition. It’s a due process challenge: DJI is saying it was never given notice of the specific evidence against it and never given the opportunity to respond before the FCC destroyed its ability to sell new products in the United States. As we’ve reported since October, DJI sent letters to five federal agencies asking them to conduct the security audit Congress mandated. No agency responded. No audit was conducted. Then the ban dropped.

This is Prelogar’s territory. She argued administrative law cases at the highest level for four years. She knows exactly where the line falls between agency discretion and procedural failure. If anyone can convince a federal court that the FCC crossed that line, it’s the former Solicitor General who spent her career defending agencies that stayed inside it.

DroneXL’s Take

When I first read the petition yesterday, the legal arguments were expected. We’ve been writing about these exact procedural failures since December. What stopped me cold was the signature page. Prelogar and LeBlanc. That’s not a legal team you assemble for a symbolic protest filing. That’s a team you assemble when you intend to win.

Prelogar knows how the government prepares its defense in appellate courts because she built those defenses for years. LeBlanc knows how the FCC’s enforcement machinery works because he ran it. Together, they can anticipate every argument the FCC will make before the government even files its brief. That’s a tactical advantage money can’t usually buy.

The existing-product restriction claim in the petition also deserves more attention than it’s getting. If the FCC is using the Covered List to block imports of drones that already have authorization, that’s a different situation than what Carr promised publicly. We’ll be digging into this.

Here’s my prediction: Prelogar will push this toward the Supreme Court if the Ninth Circuit doesn’t deliver. Her entire career is built on Supreme Court advocacy. DJI didn’t hire a former Solicitor General to settle for a circuit court loss. This fight has a longer timeline than most people realize.

For drone pilots, the practical takeaway is simple: DJI is not leaving the U.S. market quietly. The company just put the FCC on notice that it’s going to war with the best appellate lawyers in Washington. Whether that changes anything for your next drone purchase depends on how fast federal courts move. Based on my experience covering these cases, don’t hold your breath. But don’t count DJI out either.

Editorial Note: AI tools were used to assist with research and archive retrieval for this article. All reporting, analysis, and editorial perspectives are by Haye Kesteloo.