It will be interesting to see how things go from here. The University of Maine recently enacted a drone policy that is nearly identical to Newton's ordinance: Anyone possessing a drone on campus or flying over university-owned or rented property off-campus must fill out an application (i.e., register), Part 107 pilots must fly within visual line of sight, and anyone flying over university-owned or rented property must obtain permission from the school.
The school's application is absurd, with questions regarding your drone's serial number, purchase date, range, battery life, etc. The school wants to know what training you have flying the drone, etc. A committee -- yes, a committee -- of three people must sign off before you can fly. Policy documents actually say that even if you fill out all questions on the application (including providing a map of your proposed flight), the committee will likely turn you down for more information.
The school claims its policy is required by federal, state, and local laws, but a representative could not identify a single law. He kept referring me back to the policy itself. Finally he pulled the 2012 FAA Modernization Act out of his butt, but didn't cite any language to support the school's argument. He clearly had no idea what he was talking about.
I was working on a detailed letter to the school when the Singer v. Newton decision came down. I was pleased to see the judge based his decision on the same reasoning I did. I added details about the Singer decision and sent the letter yesterday. I have not received a response.