A Yellowstone visitor cited for illegal fishing is now challenging the park’s authority to make the rules he is accused of breaking.
The case involves Tate Pulliam, an Oregon man who received three citations after an incident in Yellowstone National Park. But the legal fight is now about more than fishing. His attorneys are arguing that the park superintendent did not have the constitutional authority to create the rules behind those charges.
If that argument ever succeeded, it could raise broader questions about how national parks and other federal agencies create and enforce regulations.
What Pulliam Was Cited For
According to the reports, Pulliam was cited for:
- Fishing in a river that was closed for the winter
- Fishing without the proper license or permit
- Accessing a road that was open only to over-snow vehicles
He could face up to 18 months in prison.
What His Legal Team Is Arguing
Pulliam’s attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation are not just disputing the facts of the case. They are challenging the rules themselves.
Their argument is that Congress never specifically made Pulliam’s alleged conduct illegal. Instead, they say Yellowstone’s superintendent created the rules through the park’s own rulemaking process, and that kind of lawmaking power belongs to Congress, not park officials.
In a statement quoted in the reports, attorney Michael Poon said Pulliam “went to Yellowstone to enjoy public land and left facing criminal charges,” and argued that the rules behind the case were created by a superintendent, not Congress.
Why That Argument Faces Long Odds
This is not the first time this type of legal argument has come up in a national park case.
The reports say Magistrate Judge Stephanie Hambrick, who is presiding over Pulliam’s case, already rejected a similar argument in an earlier case involving trail runner Michelino Sunseri in Grand Teton National Park.
In that case, Hambrick found that the park superintendent was a federal employee, not a federal officer subject to the Constitution’s specific appointment requirements.
She also pointed to prior court findings recognizing the National Park Service’s authority to create rules that are needed to preserve and manage national parks.
One report also referenced a 2004 decision from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that found a national park could enforce rules as a necessary and proper function of the federal government.
What Prosecutors Say
According to one of the reports, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Wyoming is preparing a response to Pulliam’s motion.
That report said the government disagrees with his arguments for dismissal and believes Yellowstone Superintendent Cam Sholly acted within his authority.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Yellowstone
Even though the case started with fishing-related citations, the legal challenge is much broader.
Pulliam’s attorneys are arguing that executive branch officials should not have the power to define conduct that can carry criminal penalties. Their filing reportedly raises separation-of-powers concerns and argues that Congress should be the branch that decides what conduct is criminal.
That is why the case could draw attention beyond Yellowstone. A ruling in Pulliam’s favor would not just affect one visitor or one park. It could call into question how national parks and other federal agencies enforce rules that were not written directly by Congress.
What Happens Next
The next hearing in Pulliam’s case is scheduled for May 12.
For now, Pulliam and his attorneys appear to face an uphill battle. But the case is still worth watching because it touches on a larger legal question that reaches well beyond one fishing citation in Yellowstone.
Write a comment