A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former Yosemite National Park employee who was terminated after helping display a massive transgender pride flag on the iconic face of El Capitan, delivering a setback to activists seeking to turn America’s national parks into platforms for political messaging.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston ruled that Shannon “SJ” Joslin, a former Yosemite ranger who identifies as nonbinary, must follow the administrative process established under federal civil service law before pursuing claims in federal court.
The ruling marks the latest chapter in a controversy that began in May 2025, when Joslin helped hang a 66-foot transgender pride flag from the towering granite formation overlooking Yosemite Valley. The banner remained in place for roughly two hours before being removed.
While supporters celebrated the display as a political statement, critics argued that national parks are intended to preserve America’s natural treasures—not serve as canvases for ideological activism.
Joslin, a wildlife biologist specializing in bats, later explained that the purpose of the stunt was to send a message that “we’re all safe in national parks.”
However, many observers questioned the necessity of such a demonstration, noting that national parks are open to all visitors regardless of identity and already operate under policies prohibiting discrimination.
The National Park Service ultimately took a different view of the matter than activist groups.
In an August 2025 termination letter, agency officials cited Joslin’s participation in what they described as an unauthorized demonstration outside designated protest areas.
“You participated in a small group demonstration in an area outside the designated protest and demonstration area without a permit,” the letter stated, adding that the action circumvented rules that apply equally to all park visitors.
Like many federal properties, Yosemite has designated First Amendment zones where demonstrations may occur without special permits under certain circumstances. Officials argued that the El Capitan display ignored those established guidelines.
Because Joslin was still serving in a probationary employment period at the time of termination, federal law provides fewer avenues for appeal than are available to permanent civil servants.
Judge Thurston’s ruling emphasized that Congress established a specific process for challenging such employment decisions through the Civil Service Reform Act.
Joslin has already filed a complaint through the Office of Special Counsel, the agency responsible for reviewing claims involving federal employee rights and potential misconduct. That office previously declined to halt the termination while its investigation proceeds. A final determination is expected later this year.
Following the firing, Joslin took to social media to defend the demonstration.
“I hung the flag in my free time, off-duty, as a private citizen,” Joslin wrote on Instagram. “El Capitan has had flags hung on it for decades and no one has EVER been punished for it.”
The former ranger also claimed the termination violated constitutional protections and accused the federal government of targeting viewpoints supportive of transgender activism.
In the lawsuit, Joslin alleged that the termination was “vindictive” and “retaliatory,” arguing that it reflected disapproval of a particular political perspective.
The suit also criticized Trump administration policies regarding transgender issues, including restrictions on military service and the rollback of various federal directives implemented during previous administrations.
However, Judge Thurston did not weigh in on the broader political claims or the free speech arguments raised by the lawsuit.
Instead, the court focused narrowly on procedural questions, ruling that employment-related claims must first move through the administrative channels established by federal law.
In her decision, Thurston acknowledged that probationary employees have limited options when contesting adverse personnel actions. Nevertheless, she noted that allowing them to bypass those procedures and head directly to federal court would effectively give them greater legal protections than many long-serving government employees receive.
The ruling leaves open the possibility of future litigation after the administrative process concludes, but for now, the case remains out of federal court.
The controversy highlights a broader debate playing out across the country: whether public institutions should remain politically neutral or increasingly serve as stages for activist causes.
For many Americans, the issue is straightforward. National parks exist to preserve the nation’s natural beauty and historical heritage—not to become battlegrounds in the culture wars.
And in this case, at least for now, the courts appear to be siding with the established rules rather than political activism.
