In a recent video, attorney Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner breaks down a wild Sixth Circuit decision about Michigan’s ban on using drones in hunting. He says the case ties together hunting rules, free speech, and modern tech in surprising ways.
According to Smith, the dispute centers on Drone Deer Recovery, LLC and its owner Mike Yoder, who wanted to use aerial drones with thermal imaging to locate downed or dying deer for paying hunters.
Michigan’s law effectively blocked that service, so they sued.
What the Michigan Law Tries to Prevent
As Smith explains it, Michigan enacted an anti-drone hunting statute to stop two kinds of conduct at once. On one side, lawmakers didn’t want hunters using drones to “aid in the taking of game,” which they viewed as undermining fair chase and traditional ethics.
On the other side, Smith notes, legislators also feared anti-hunting activists might deploy drones to harass or interfere with lawful hunts.
The point, he says, was to deter both pro- and anti-hunting drone activity, not to favor a message.
The Plaintiffs’ Free Speech Theory – And Why It Mattered
Smith says Yoder and Drone Deer Recovery didn’t bring a Second Amendment claim. Instead, they argued First Amendment: operating the drone, capturing thermal images, and sending a GPS pin and status update to the hunter is expressive information – speech – sold as a service.
So, the theory went, by forbidding the drone-aided recovery process that includes transmitting those facts to a customer, Michigan was restricting protected speech.
According to Smith, the federal district court originally tossed the case for lack of standing. That means the judge said the plaintiffs weren’t the right parties or didn’t show enough injury to be in federal court.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagreed on that point. In a per curiam decision (one issued by the panel without individual judge names), Smith reports the court found standing existed because the law directly harmed the business, blocking a service they wanted to sell and customers wanted to buy.
The Merits Next: Why the Plaintiffs Still Lost
Winning standing only opened the courthouse door. On the merits, Smith says the Sixth Circuit still affirmed dismissal. The panel concluded Michigan’s drone rule did not violate the First Amendment.
Why? Smith explains the court treated the statute as content neutral – it didn’t pick sides in any debate about hunting. Instead, it barred a method (using drones to take, track, follow, or locate game) regardless of whether the drone operator liked hunting, hated hunting, or had no opinion at all.
Smith quotes the court’s reasoning: lawmakers acted both to prevent hunters from using drones to assist the taking of game and to stop anti-hunting groups from using drones to disrupt hunts.
In other words, the rule applies equally to everyone who wants to use drones to follow wildlife.
Because the law regulates conduct – the drone-assisted tracking of animals – rather than messages, the court did not view it as a speech ban aimed at ideas. And that knocked out the First Amendment attack.
How the Drone Service Worked, According to the Court
Smith highlights the Sixth Circuit’s description of the business model. A hunter books a Drone Deer Recovery operator online.
The operator flies a drone with infrared and thermal imaging to spot a heat signature that could be a downed deer.
If the operator confirms the animal is dead, or likely to die by morning, they drop a GPS pin, send the location to the customer, and the hunter recovers the deer using Google Maps or a similar app.
Smith calls it a clever service, pitched as less intrusive than dogs or trail cameras.
Is This Even “Speech”? The Court Didn’t Need to Decide
Smith notes the panel didn’t have to settle a big academic question: is collecting and transmitting factual data inherently protected speech? The court sidestepped the hardest part by focusing on content neutrality and the regulation of conduct.
Because the law didn’t target what anyone said, only how they pursued animals, the First Amendment claim failed even assuming some expressive element was present.
Here’s where I think Smith’s analysis is eye-opening. This fight isn’t a classic gun-rights lawsuit, yet it sits next door to the Second Amendment.
If states can regulate methods around hunting – tracking tools, aircraft, night vision – those choices can shape real-world outcomes for lawful gun owners who hunt.
To me, the lesson is simple: constitutional fights often spill into neighboring doctrines. You can’t defend one right if you don’t understand the others that touch it – exactly Smith’s point about learning the First, the Second, and the structural rules together.
Smith’s breakdown also hints at a bigger tension: technology advances fast; wildlife law moves slow. Drones, thermal optics, and AI tracking can make recovery faster and cleaner. But regulations tend to favor tradition and fair chase.
Whether you agree with Michigan or not, this case shows courts are comfortable letting states draw lines to protect hunting ethics and prevent harassment.
If tech is going to be welcomed, it will likely need to come through legislatures, not litigation under the First Amendment.
Could a Second Amendment Claim Have Landed Differently?
Smith doesn’t say the plaintiffs missed anything strategically – he’s reporting the case they filed – but he does muse on the interplay with the right to keep and bear arms, including the lawful purpose of hunting.
Would a future case argue that certain recovery aids are so tied to lawful hunting that bans burden the right itself? Maybe.
But given long traditions of states regulating methods and means (seasons, bag limits, baiting rules, aircraft bans), that would be an uphill climb.
Smith sums it up this way: the Sixth Circuit said Michigan can enforce its drone ban in hunting contexts without violating the First Amendment. The panel recognized standing, then upheld the law as content neutral, focused on conduct, and supported by interests in fair chase and preventing interference.
For hunters and outfitters, that means drone-based recovery remains off-limits under Michigan law unless lawmakers change it. For litigators, it’s a reminder that speech claims won’t always crack conduct-focused wildlife rules.
Smith encourages viewers to pay attention to how similar laws fare elsewhere, because the drone revolution in outdoor sports is only getting started. Expect more test cases at the edges: mapping, sensors, automated tracking, and data feeds.
But unless a law targets messages or viewpoints, courts may keep deferring to state wildlife management on the mechanics of the hunt – especially when statutes can be framed as evenhanded and ethics-driven.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.