Airspace Ownership Controversies in the United States: A Concise History

Main Article Content

Trevor Simoneau

Abstract

Ownership and control of airspace has long been a controversial, confusing, and difficult area of study within aviation law. Throughout the twentieth century, there was copious debate surrounding the rights of property owners and the authority of aviation regulatory agencies to govern airspace. The invention of the airplane and a burgeoning concern about aerial trespass vigorously fueled that debate. In the contemporary context, airspace ownership questions center primarily on debates over low-altitude airspace and subsequent legal remedies available for improper use, illegal entrance, or unwanted occupation of that airspace. This review examines the history of airspace ownership controversies in the United States through an analysis of legal cases, scholarly debates, academic journal articles, and primary sources. The purpose of this paper is to assist aviation scholarly and industry personnel in forming a better understanding of the historical and contemporary debates that have surrounded the question of airspace rights. It is a particularly meaningful time to review this area of aviation legal history because the advent of novel aviation technologies—namely, drones, Urban Air Mobility (UAM), and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) air taxis—is creating an industry ripe for new airspace ownership and control controversies in the coming decades.

Article Details

Section
Peer-Reviewed Articles

References

Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 400 (1960). https://casetext.com/case/ackerman-v-port-of-seattle

A.J. Hodges Industries, Inc. v. United States, 355 F.2d 592 (1966). https://casetext.com/case/aj-hodges-industries-inc-v-united-states

Anderson, R. B. (1961). Some aspects of airspace trespass. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 27(4), 341–359. https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol27/iss4/3

Andritsos, K., Scott, B. I., & Trimarchi, A. (2022). What is in a name: Defining key terms in urban air mobility. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 105, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-022-01694-1

Bacon v. United States, 295 F.2d 936 (1961). https://casetext.com/case/bacon-v-united-states-2

Ball, S. S. (1928, April). The vertical extent of ownership in land. University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, 76(6), 631–689. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8295&context=penn_law_review#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20soil%2C%20the,things%20which%20may%20be%20owned

Banner, S. (2008). Who owns the sky? The struggle to control airspace from the Wright Brothers on. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674020498

Brennan v. Dickson, No. 21-1087 (D.C. Cir., 2022). https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/55807FB471B60BB08525888E0051AEA6/$file/21-1087-1956978.pdf

Brenner v. New Richmond Reg’l Airport Comm’n, 2012 WI 98 (2012). https://casetext.com/case/brenner-v-new-richmond-regl-airport-commn

Brown v. U.S., 73 F.3d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1996). https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-us-63

Butler v. Frontier Tel. Co., 186 N.Y. 486, 79 N.E. 716 (1906). https://casetext.com/case/butler-v-frontier-telephone-co

Cahoon, C. (1990). Low altitude airspace: A property rights no-man’s land. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 56(1), 157–198. https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol56/iss1/5

Causby v. United States, 104 Ct. CL. 342 (1945). https://cite.case.law/pdf/11004443/Causby%20v.%20United%20States,%20104%20Ct.%20Cl.%20342%20(1945).pdf

Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, Pub. L. No. 75-706, 52 Stat. 973 (1938). https://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/books-online/CivilAeronauticsAct.pdf

Cohen, W. (1958). Justice Douglas: A law clerk’s view. University of Chicago Law Review, 26(1), 6–8. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol26/iss1/4/

Cooper, J. C. (1948). State sovereignty vs. federal sovereignty of navigable airspace. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 15(1), 27–38. https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol15/iss1/3

Cummings, J. J. (1953). Ownership and control of airspace. Marquette Law Review, 37(2), 176–184. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol37/iss2/6

Domnarski, W. (2006). The great justices, 1941-54: Black, Douglas, Frankfurter & Jackson in chambers. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.156576 s

Donohue, L. K. (2021). Who owns the skies? Ad coelum, property rights, and state sovereignty. In M. Feeney (Ed.), Eyes to the Sky: Privacy and Commerce in the Age of the Drone. Cato Institute. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2369/

Drone Federalism Act, S. 1272, 115th Cong. (2017). https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1272/text

Drone Integration and Zoning Act, S. 600, 117th Cong. (2021). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/600/text

Eubank, J. A. (1930, January). Ownership of the airspace. Dickinson Law Review, 34(2), 75–104. https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra/vol34/iss2/1

Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-726, 72 Stat. 731 (1958). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-72/pdf/STATUTE-72-Pg731.pdf#page=1

Federal Aviation Administration. (2021, August 30). Airspace 101 – Rules of the sky. https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airspace_101

Federal Aviation Administration. (2020, June 26). Urban air mobility concept of operations. https://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/UAM_ConOps_v1.0.pdf

Field, A. T. & Davis, F. K. (1996). Can the legal eagles use the ageless preemption doctrine to keep American aviators soaring above the clouds and into the twenty-first century. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 62(2), 315–383. https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol62/iss2/2

Garland, O. J. (1937). The proper theory on which to seek an injunction against overflights over land. Washington University Law Quarterly, 22(4), 559–564. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol22/iss4/8/

Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2020, September 16). Unmanned aircraft systems: Current jurisdictional, property, and privacy legal issues regarding the commercial and recreational use of drones (GAO Report B-330570). https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-330570.pdf

Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84 (1962). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep369/usrep369084/usrep369084.pdf

Gustafson, L. P. (2017). Arkansas, airspace ownership and the challenge of drones. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 39(2), 245–278. https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1979&context=lawreview

Hackley, H. H. (1937). Trespassers in the sky. Minnesota Law Review, 21(7), 773–804. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2498&context=mlr

Hannabalson v. Sessions, 116 Iowa 457 (1902). https://cite.case.law/iowa/116/457/

Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 84 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1936), cert. denied, 300 U.S. 654 (1937). https://casetext.com/case/hinman-v-pacific-air-transport

Huerta v. Haughwout, No. 3:16-cv-358 (JAM) (D. Conn. Jul. 18, 2016). https://casetext.com/case/huerta-v-haughwout

Immel, J. J. & Langlinais, J. A. (2020). The challenges to urban air mobility. The Air & Space Lawyer, 33(3). https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/air_space_lawyer/fall2020/asl_v033n03_fall2020_immellanglinais.pdf

Kingsley, R. & Mangham, C. R. (1932). The correlative interests of the landowner and the airman. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 3(3), 374–399. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3695&context=jalc

Klein, H. D. (1959). Cujus est solum ejus est.. quousque tandem. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 26(3), 237–254. https://scholar/smu.edu/jalc/vol26/iss3/2

Lacey v. United States, 595 F.2d 614 (1979). https://casetext.com/case/lacey-v-united-states#p615

Lashbrook, L. D. (1946, March). Ad coelum maxim as applied to aviation law. Notre Dame Law Review, 21(3), 143–154. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol21/iss3/1

Leavitt, I. M. (1947). The landowner versus the airport. West Virginia Law Review, 50(2), 145–157. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4010&context=wvlr

Logan, G. B. (1930, August). The case of Smith v. New England Aircraft Company. The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, 6(3), 316–324. https://www.jstor/org/stable/3139001

Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 336 Mich. App. 521 (2021). https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20210318_C349230_47_349230.OPN.PDF

Miller, B. M. (2020). Drone delivery and the takings clause. Texas A&M Journal of Property Law, 6(2), 139–168. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/journal-of-property-law/vol6/iss2/3/

New York Times. (1929, January 20). Land owner holds air space rights: Aerial transport bringing up many questions of public and private ownership. ProQuest Historical newspapers: The New York Times with Index.

New York Times. (1930, March 5). Landowner does not control airspace, expert holds. ProQuest Historical newspapers: The New York Times with Index.

Palisades Citizens Ass’n, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 420 F.2d 188 (1969). https://casetext.com/case/palisades-citizens-assn-inc-v-cab#e1d4194b-2f6c-4762-a43f-f0a3c89f700c-fn6

Ravich, T. M. (2020). On-demand aviation: Governance challenges of urban air mobility (“UAMâ€). Penn State Law Review, 124(3), 657–689. http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/On-Demand-Aviation-Governance-Challenges-of-Urban-Air-Mobility-%E2%80%9CUAM%E2%80%9D.pdf

Reeves, A. G. (1909). A treatise on the law of real property. Boston Little, Brown, and Company.

Rhyne, C. S. (1944). Airports and the courts. National Institute of Municipal Law Officers.

Rule, T. A. (2011). Airspace in a green economy. UCLA Law Review, 59, 270–320. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1337&context=facpubs

Rule, T. A. (2012). Airspace and the takings clause. Washington University Law Review, 90, 421–472. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1481&context=facpubs

Rule, T. A. (2015). Airspace in an age of drones. Boston University Law Review, 95, 155–208. https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/02/RULE.pdf

Rule, T. A. (2022). Drones, airspace, and the sharing economy. Mercatus Working Paper Series. https://www.mercatus.org/publications/technology-and-innovation/drones-airspace-and-sharing-economy

Rupprecht, J., Candelario, E., & Yodice, K. Brief of Petitioners, Brennan v. Dickson, No. 21-1087 (2022), 2021.

Skorup, B. (2022a). Drones, airspace design, and aerial law in states and cities. Akron Law Review, 55(1), 157–186. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2554&context=akronlawreview

Skorup, B. (2022b). Is your state ready for drone commerce? The 2022 state-by-state scorecard. Mercatus Center. https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/skorup_dronescorecard_2022.pdf

Smith v. New England Aircraft Co., 270 Mass. 511 (1930). https://casetext.com/case/smith-v-new-england-aircraft-co-inc

Speciale, R. C. (2006). Fundamentals of aviation law. McGraw-Hill.

Speir v. United States, 485 F.2d 643 (Fed. Cir. 1973). https://casetext.com/case/speir-v-united-states

Swetland v. Curtiss Airports Corp., 41 F.2d 929 (1930). https://casetext.com/case/swetland-v-curtiss-airports-corporation-2

Swetland v. Curtiss Airports Corp., 55 F.2d 201 (1932). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/55/201/1565138/

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al., 535 U.S. 302 (2002). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/302/case.pdf

Thrasher v. City of Atlanta et al., 178 Ga. 514 (1934). https://cite.case.law/ga/178/514/

Thrope, L. J. (1947). Flight on aircraft as a taking of property. Wyoming Law Journal, 1(3), 148–150. https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlj/vol1/iss3/10

Turner, J. S. & Baxenberg, S. M. (2018, October 17). Causby and effect: How the Uniform law Commission’s misplaced reliance on a 1946 Supreme Court case threatens the drone industry. Thomson Reuters Westlaw. https://www.wiley.law/assets/htmldocuments/Causby_And_Effect.pdf

Turner, J. S. & Baxenberg, S. M. (2020). Clearing the air: ULC rightfully rejects property rights advocates’ line in the sky. The Air & Space Lawyer, 33(3). https://www.wiley.law/assets/htmldocuments/ASL_v033n03_Fall2020_TurnerBaxenberg.pdf

Turner, J. S. & Baxenberg, S. M. Brief of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents, Brennan v. Dickson, No. 21-1087 (2022), 2021.

Uniform State Law for Aeronautics (1922). https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/22735/chapter/12#78

United States v. 15,909 Acres, 176 F. Supp. 447 (1958). https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-15909-acres#p448

United States v. Causby et ux., 328 U.S. 256 (1946). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep328/usrep328256/usrep328256.pdf

U.S. Const. amend. V. https://www.senate.gov/civics/resources/pdf/US_Constitution-Senate_Publication_103-21.pdf

Whitnah, D. R. (1966). Safer skyways: Federal control of aviation, 1926–1966. The Iowa State University Press.