Outdoorsman fights federal charges stemming from unconstitutional park rules

Cheyenne, Wyoming; April 13, 2026: Today, an Oregon man asked a court to dismiss criminal charges he argues a Yellowstone National Park superintendent had no constitutional authority to impose on him. Tate Pulliam alleges that the restrictions — enforced against him through three petty offense citations — violate the Constitution because a career bureaucrat, not Congress, decided his conduct was criminal.

“Tate went to Yellowstone to enjoy public land and left facing criminal charges,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Michael Poon. “But Congress never made his alleged actions illegal. Instead, a park superintendent invented the rules behind these charges, resulting in massive overcriminalization. That is not how lawmaking works under the Constitution.”

Tate Pulliam was cited by federal officials with three petty offenses for fishing in Yellowstone and for driving his standard pickup truck down a road they say was only for over-snow vehicles.

Pulliam is fighting back against charges that never should have been filed. The Constitution requires Congress to decide what conduct is criminal, including in national parks, but Congress improperly handed that sweeping power over to the Executive Branch. The result has been extraordinary overcriminalization of actions that should, at most, be minor tickets—for example, the government’s charges against Tate carry penalties of up to 18 months in prison. A victory would invalidate the charges against Pulliam and curb the federal government’s ability to criminalize conduct through rules that Congress never actually passed.

National parks need rules to ensure that they are properly maintained and continue to be enjoyable to everyone. But rules are effective and fair only when the punishment is proportional to the crime. The Framers of the Constitution understood that and gave the responsibility to write criminal law to the most deliberative and accountable body in the federal government—Congress. The courts must hold the government to that principle.

This case builds on another Pacific Legal Foundation case, United States v. Sunseri, in which PLF defended a well-known trail runner wrongfully charged under similarly unauthorized restrictions at Grand Teton National Park. President Donald Trump ultimately pardoned Sunseri, but the underlying constitutional problem remains unresolved. A victory for Pulliam would invalidate the charges against him and curb the federal government’s ability to criminalize conduct through rules that Congress never passed.

Pacific Legal Foundation represents Pulliam free of charge. The case is United States v. Tate Pulliam.