what does the law say about flying over somebodys south 40 of soybeans at 200 up'
(lets say 1000'+ from structure/people/vehicle)
in a cesna152?

The regs would take into play part C 'Sparse' minimum altitudes (aka No Minimum Alt),
and the civil case would evaluate just how high is reasonable 'AirProperty' use of Soy plants
... 200' tall soybeans? I dont think so. the property owner is clearly NOT using the airspace 200-350000 feet up and flying in that 200-350000' zone dont bother his use of his soybean crop land.

Now, the argument that just SEEING a contrail of a jumojet interferes with 'enjoyment' of their property
(or that just seeing a UAS:MA at 6000'up interferes with their enjoyment)
(or that just seeing a UAS:MA at 200'up & 1200'over interferes with their enjoyment)
well, that what crazy judges and jurys are for.
Heck, crazy courts see the term 'Shall Not Be Infringed' as meaning 'OK To Ban'... so who knows what different courts will rule in different states/countys regarding someone seeing an aircraft flying at a legal altitude somewhere over their land or over land NEAR their land.

The biggest cases are NOT going to be about some model (UAS:MA) in the countryside,
but about the Gov and the paparazzi ('Public'UAS and 'Civil'UAS) ops flying with the purpose of LOOKING AT YOU rather than flying with the purpose of recreational flying

The big gripe is that folks can SEE and HEAR a police heli, but they wont notice a drone spying on them,
which kinda makes OUR case that
our UAS:MA cant be that intrusive
if they say they cant see or hear it when the cops do it with UAS:Public