The Federal Aviation Administration has withdrawn unconstitutional restrictions that criminalized drone flights near federal immigration enforcement operations — a direct response to a legal challenge that attorneys from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed on behalf of photojournalist Rob Levine.

The FAA’s sweeping, nationwide flight restrictions, which were implemented in January, prohibited drones from flying within 3,000 lateral feet and 1,000 vertical feet of U.S. Department of Homeland Security “facilities and mobile assets.” The agency threatened criminal and civil penalties for drone operators who violated the no fly zone.

Represented by Reporters Committee attorneys Grayson Clary, Adam A. Marshall, and Renee Griffin, Levine asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to throw out the restrictions, arguing that there is no means of verifying in advance whether DHS vehicles — such as unmarked cars driven by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — are operating in a given location. “The result has been a grave chilling effect on the lawful use of drones,” Reporters Committee attorneys argued in a motion filed last week.

On Wednesday, the FAA responded by rescinding the regulation in its entirety. In its place, the agency issued an advisory that no longer carries civil or criminal penalties for drone journalists documenting federal agents.

“This is a big win. It was heartbreaking to have my drones grounded at a time of such importance to my community, but I’m looking forward to getting back up there and getting back to my journalism as soon as possible,” said Levine, a Minneapolis photojournalist who has used drones to cover protests and other newsworthy events in Minnesota.

“We’re glad to see the FAA rescind its original order, which was an egregious overreach that had serious consequences for reporters nationwide,” Clary added. “But this kind of arbitrary back-and-forth from the FAA is exactly the problem, and we intend to make clear to the D.C. Circuit that this restriction never should have been implemented in the first place.”