Yellowstone or Yellow-tape? Man Sues Over ‘Bureaucratic’ Criminal Charges

When Oregonian Tate Pulliam headed to Yellowstone National Park, he probably expected some scenic views and maybe a stubborn bison or two. He likely didn’t expect to end up in federal court arguing about the separation of powers.

According to Pacific Legal Foundation, Pulliam is currently facing three petty offense citations for the “heinous” crimes of fishing and driving his pickup truck on a road that officials say was reserved for snow-vehicles. While that sounds like the recipe for a standard slap-on-the-wrist fine, there’s a catch: these rules weren’t written by Congress. They were dreamt up by a park superintendent, and they carry a potential sentence of up to 18 months in prison.

Represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, Pulliam is arguing that this is a classic case of “overcriminalization.” The gist? The Constitution says only Congress has the power to decide what makes someone a criminal. By letting executive “career bureaucrats” invent laws on the fly, the government is essentially bypassing the legislative process to turn minor faux pas into jail-time offenses.

“That is not how lawmaking works,” says attorney Michael Poon.

This legal showdown follows in the footsteps of a similar case involving a trail runner in Grand Teton. While that runner secured a presidential pardon, the bigger question remains: Can a park ranger really play judge, jury, and lawmaker? Pulliam is hoping the court says “no,” ensuring that national park rules stay focused on maintenance—not making accidental felons out of tourists.