National Parks Worker Dismissed After Pride Flag Protest Files Lawsuit Over Alleged First Amendment Breach
Shannon "S.J." Joslin, a 36-year-old non-binary wildlife biologist and park ranger, has initiated legal proceedings against the federal government, claiming their termination was an unlawful retaliation for protected speech. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., centres on Joslin's participation in a protest where a large transgender pride flag was displayed from the iconic El Capitan rock formation in Yosemite National Park.
Protest Against Anti-Trans Policies Leads to Dismissal
In May 2025, Joslin joined a group of six other climbers, including three off-duty park rangers and four friends who identified as LGBT+ or allies, to scale El Capitan. The group unfurled a 55-foot by 35-foot pink and blue transgender pride flag as a direct protest against the Trump administration's series of anti-transgender policies. Joslin, who holds a Ph.D. in genetics and works as a bat biologist, stated they were "really hurting" over the administration's assault on trans rights and aimed to signal that trans and non-binary individuals were safe at Yosemite.
The flag remained visible for less than three hours before being taken down by the climbers. However, three months later, Joslin was fired by the National Park Service (NPS) for "failing to demonstrate acceptable conduct." Additionally, Joslin was allegedly informed they were under criminal investigation, a claim detailed in the legal complaint.
Legal Allegations of Unconstitutional Retaliation
The lawsuit names multiple federal entities, including the National Park Service, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California, along with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and NPS acting director Jessica Bowron. It accuses these bodies of "illegal and unconstitutional" actions that violated Joslin's First Amendment rights and the Privacy Act.
"For decades, climbers at Yosemite National Park have expressed messages—political and non-political—from the iconic rock formation El Capitan," the complaint asserts. It highlights that other demonstrations from El Capitan have included Father's Day greetings, climate change protests, and displays related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, with no federal employees previously facing punishment for involvement.
Joslin's legal team argues that the firing and criminal probe constitute a "vindictive campaign" intended to chill expressive conduct and speech. They note that Joslin and colleagues consulted with NPS staff who had completed official First Amendment training, receiving assurances that off-duty participation was permissible.
Context of Federal Policy and Park Regulations
The protest occurred against a backdrop of federal policy shifts under the Trump administration, which had mandated that all federal agencies enforce a transgender bathroom ban on their properties. In a related move, the NPS had removed the word "transgender" from the Stonewall National Monument website earlier in 2025, despite the historical significance of transgender individuals in the Stonewall riots.
Following the protest, Yosemite authorities announced a new ban on flying large flags from most areas of the park on May 21, 2025—the day after the demonstration. Although dated May 20, the lawsuit claims the ban was only electronically signed on May 21, suggesting it was a pretext to censor disfavoured speech like Joslin's flag display.
Seeking Reinstatement and Damages
Joslin's lawsuit seeks several remedies from the court:
- A court order reinstating Joslin to their former position as a park ranger and bat biologist.
- An injunction prohibiting the NPS from pursuing criminal investigations against Joslin related to the protest.
- Monetary damages of at least $1,000, along with coverage of all legal costs incurred during the proceedings.
The case underscores ongoing tensions between federal employment policies and constitutional free speech protections, particularly in the context of LGBTQ+ rights and public land use. As of now, the involved agencies have not publicly commented on the lawsuit, leaving the legal battle to unfold in the coming months.
