A federal judge in New Jersey has concluded that a borough cannot ban drones from its own sky. On Sept. 24, 2026, U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton denied the Borough of Lodi's motion to dismiss in Palange v. Borough of Lodi (Civ. No. 26-2375), holding that the town's drone ordinance is preempted by federal law on two separate grounds. The same letter opinion, however, denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order, leaving the pilot who brought the case with a legal win on the merits question and no immediate injunction.

The plaintiff, Paul A. Palange Jr. of James Street in Lodi, is representing himself. The borough, Mayor Scott A. Luna and Police Chief Donald Scorzetti are represented by Vando Cardoso of Cardoso Law. The court's jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. 1331, federal-question jurisdiction. The opinion is eight pages and is available on govinfo.gov.

What the Ordinance Does

Lodi's Chapter 217, titled "Drones and Unmanned Aircraft," is unusually broad. According to the opinion, it prohibits drones below 400 feet anywhere in the borough. It defines a "drone" as an unmanned aircraft with a sensing device such as a camera, microphone or thermal detector, or one capable of any data collection. It separately prohibits "unmanned aircraft," defined as aircraft with no sensing device and no data-collection capability, below 400 feet over residential and commercial zones, roads, public buildings, parks and other property. The ordinance exempts law enforcement and emergency services, and it includes a savings clause, Section 217-4D, providing that drone use in accordance with FAA regulations is permitted notwithstanding the rest of the ordinance. DroneXL reports that the ordinance is Ordinance 2025-08, adopted June 17, 2025, that Lodi covers roughly 2.27 square miles, and that penalties run to $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for a second. A third carries up to $2,000 plus as many as 90 days in jail.

The court was unpersuaded that the clause saved the law. In the opinion's words: "Read together, those restrictions leave no meaningful altitude band in which a UAS may lawfully operate, effectively barring UAS operations in the Borough." FAA rules generally cap small drone flight at 400 feet above ground level, while the ordinance bars flight below 400 feet.

How the Case Arose

The opinion recounts, from the complaint, that between February and July 2025, Lodi police repeatedly visited Palange's property to inspect his drone and ask about his flights. He produced his FAA registration and LAANC authorization paperwork, said the flights were recreational and launched and landed on private property, and officers confirmed the aircraft had no camera. He was nonetheless served in court with Ordinance Chapter 217 on July 16, 2025, and received summonses alleging violations on July 18, 22 and 30, 2025. Palange filed his three-count complaint and TRO motion on March 6, 2026.

The Two Preemption Holdings

Judge Wigenton's reasoning has two prongs.

  • Field preemption. The court held the ordinance "is field preempted because it regulates aviation safety and airspace management," and that it "in substance dictates where UAS may fly and at what altitude." Deciding where aircraft may operate, and at what height, is the core of federal airspace regulation. The court also noted that the FAA fact sheet identifies measures restricting UAS flight altitude or flight paths to protect people and property on the ground as likely preempted, and that the borough's privacy rationale is undercut because "unmanned aircraft" by definition cannot collect data.
  • Conflict preemption. Independently, the court found the ordinance conflict preempted as "an essential ban" and an "obstacle to the FAA and Congress's objectives to integrate UAS into the national airspace."

The court also held that the ordinance's own savings clause, Section 217-4D, does not cure the preemption problem. Borough lawyers argued the clause makes the ordinance consistent with FAA regulations. The court answered that where Congress occupies a field, even parallel or complementary local regulation is impermissible, so the carve-out does not insulate the ordinance.

The Federal Guidance Behind It

The opinion cites the FAA and Department of Transportation fact sheet dated July 14, 2023. The State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems fact sheet carries a transmittal letter signed by DOT General Counsel John E. Putnam and FAA Chief Counsel Marc A. Nichols. Its framework is straightforward:

  • States and local governments may not regulate in the fields of aviation safety or airspace efficiency, but generally may regulate outside those fields.
  • A state or local law is preempted if it conflicts with FAA regulations.
  • Laws affecting commercial UAS operators are more likely to be preempted.

The court relied on the fact sheet for the proposition that legitimate state and local interests, such as land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, emergency medical services and law enforcement operations, likely are not preempted. That is the lane left open to towns. A rule on land use or one that addresses privacy is a different animal from a blanket altitude ceiling over an entire municipality; the court said the FAA's recognition of limited state and local co-regulation "does not extend to a regime that practically prohibits UAS operations across an entire town."

Why No Restraining Order

Palange still lost his emergency motion. The court found he had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, the first factor, but denied the TRO and preliminary injunction request (D.E. 2) because he did not show irreparable harm. On the First Amendment theory, the court said the ordinance does not implicate any First Amendment freedom, because Palange characterizes his flights as recreational and did not show they were expressive conduct. On the other theories of harm, the court said the borough represents that Palange is not in violation of the ordinance, so the record does not show imminent enforcement and any threatened injury is speculative. The borough's motion to dismiss (D.E. 4), which argued insufficient service and failure to state a claim, was also denied; the court found service defects were cured within the Rule 4(m) period. In short, the case continues, the preemption reasoning stands as the court's view, and the borough's own representation that Palange is not in violation undercut the urgency of emergency relief.

The opinion does not, as read, reflect a final judgment striking the ordinance from the books. It is a ruling on a motion to dismiss and a TRO request, though the court did state that the ordinance is unenforceable under preemption principles.

Precedent and Parallels

The opinion itself relies on Singer v. City of Newton, 284 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D. Mass. 2017), in which a privacy-framed ban on flights below 400 feet over public and private property without permission was held preempted because it functioned as a wholesale ban on drone use in the city. The court said the same is true of Lodi's ordinance. DroneXL additionally ties the ruling to Westwood, N.J., which it says tried a similar below-400-foot rule in 2020, and to Olathe, Kan., which it says pulled its own rule before a judge had to rule. Those two connections come from DroneXL's reporting, not from the Lodi opinion.

Why It Matters

For pilots, the practical value is the reasoning, not the disposition. A federal court in the District of New Jersey has now said in writing that an ordinance functioning as a town-wide altitude ban is preempted twice over, and that an ordinance's own clause permitting FAA-compliant operation does not change that. That gives operators a citation when confronted with similar local rules, although a single district-court letter opinion, marked "not for publication," on a motion to dismiss is not binding on other courts.

For municipalities, the message is a warning about drafting. Officials in towns weighing their own drone restrictions, including those in the Westwood and Olathe mold DroneXL describes, have a clear template of what not to do: setting altitudes, prohibiting flight categories, or writing rules that in effect leave no legal place to fly. The fact sheet's list of interests that are likely not preempted (land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, emergency medical services, law enforcement operations) marks the safer ground.

It also shows the cost of getting it wrong. According to the complaint as recounted in the opinion, Lodi's police confirmed a camera-less aircraft and saw FAA registration and LAANC authorization, and summonses followed. The borough later represented in its motion that Palange is not in violation of the ordinance. A pro se plaintiff has put the ordinance in front of a federal judge, and the borough now faces continued litigation over a law that a federal court has said is unenforceable under preemption principles.

Sources