Can this ultimately affect drones that fly over another person's property simply based on principle?

[LoudThunder]

Four hunters passing from one piece of public land into another area of public land stepped over private land, did not touch it, merely passed over it and the owner (Fred Eshelman, a pharmaceutical executive) sued the hunters for trespassing since they entered his "airspace"

Federal appeals court sides with corner-crossing hunters in Wyoming dispute

The landowner lost, but now the case of Corner Crossing is scheduled to go to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, Eshelman filed a civil lawsuit against the hunters, claiming trespass by passing through the "airspace" above his property and seeking over $7 million in damages.

 

[Brutalwarpig]

From my understanding, in the US, you do not own the airspace above your land above a certain height. A landowners owns the airspace directly above their land to the extent of their use. In other words if you want to build a tall building on your land, you can up to a statutory regulated height. The law generally states a land owner has a right to their airspace to the extent that they can enjoy their land free from unreasonable intrusion or annoyance. Certainly 500 feet above ground level is considered public right of way. However the space drones may fly in is no higher than 400 feet AGL. The FAA is the sole authority over US airspace above 500 feet AGL. However, I do not know how the conservative majority in the Supreme Court will view this issue. They can only interpret the law. The justice can't legislate from the bench. This will be interesting.

 

[LoudThunder]

From my understanding,

I cannot fathom just how wrong almost every statement you made is erroneous…

You seem to have found a way to mix apples (49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace) and oranges (Old English Case Law -- encoded in the Latin phrase Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos ("Whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell.").

That was true in medieval Roman law and is credited to 13th-century glossator Accursius; it was notably popularized in common law in Commentaries on the Laws of England (1766) by William Blackstone.

But this kind of logic fell out of favor when the Montgolfier brothers, with the first unmanned flight on June 4, 1783, in Annonay, France. The first flight with living passengers (a sheep, duck, and rooster) took place on September 19, 1783 and it was against the law to shoot at people flying overhead…

I would very much enjoy you taking the FAA to task for them controlling "your" airspace…

 

[Brutalwarpig]

I'm only concerned with the laws where I fly and to a lesser degree, in the US. IMO airspace with the exception of controlled airspace around airports, military bases, and other sensitive locations, should be public right of way. I own land with a large creek passing through it. All the time strangers that I don't want on my property are leaving trash on my property because the creek in navigable which gives the public "right of way". I like to fly drones in beautiful natural areas. It would be impossible to enjoy my hobby if I had to get permission from dozens if not hundreds of property owners. I am respectful, I do not point my cameras at people or their homes (it is illegal to video people on private property without their permission). My father and I own and fly private aircraft. My dad also owns a helicopter which can legally be flown as low as 500 feet AGL. Could you imagine if airlines had to get permission from every property owner for a cross country flight?!