In a ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston concluded that the court simply lacks the power to order the reinstatement of Shannon “SJ” Joslin, the former National Park Service employee fired after displaying a transgender pride flag from Yosemite National Park’s famed El Capitan formation last year.
The decision wasn’t a declaration that the firing was justified. Instead, it was a reminder of a basic legal principle that often gets lost in today’s culture-war theatrics: courts can only exercise authority granted to them by law.
As Thurston wrote, “But the government has another more fundamental and more persuasive point: under the laws that Congress has passed, and under the legal precedent that a federal trial court must follow, this Court does not have authority to decide whether Joslin was fired for unconstitutional or illegal reasons, nor to block a hypothetical criminal case against them.” In other words, before anyone gets to argue the politics, there’s a threshold problem: this particular court isn’t the place to settle the dispute.
Joslin, who identifies as nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns, argued that the government selectively punished protected speech. But Thurston said federal law requires those claims to go through the Office of Special Counsel rather than a federal district court. “The Court lacks jurisdiction to review Joslin’s termination or to offer any related relief, including a reinstatement,” the judge wrote. That distinction matters. Activists and media allies frequently portray procedural defeats as ideological victories-in-waiting.
The controversy stems from an incident last year when Joslin unfurled a transgender pride flag from El Capitan, the towering granite monolith that has become one of the most recognizable features in the National Park System and a destination for climbers from around the world.
Joslin has maintained the firing was politically motivated and previously told reporters, “Yes, I lost my job for this flag. But this wasn’t the first way that the Trump administration had been scaring us into silence as federal workers. And that felt wrong, too.”
But critics argue the dispute was never really about personal identity. It was about whether federal employees can use nationally protected public lands as platforms for political messaging while sidestepping rules that apply to everyone else.
The Interior Department signaled as much in its response, emphasizing that Yosemite exists to preserve natural and cultural resources—not to serve as a stage for competing political causes. “We take the protection of the park’s resources and the experience of our visitors very seriously and will not tolerate violations of laws and regulations that impact those resources and experiences,” an Interior Department spokesperson said.
The department added: “Yosemite National Park was designated by Congress to highlight the beautiful natural and cultural features of the area. No matter the cause, demonstrating without a permit outside of designated First-Amendment areas detracts from the visitor experience and the protection of the park. To safeguard the protection of visitors, visitor experiences, and park resources, many demonstrations require a permit.”
That last point is likely to resonate with many Americans who are increasingly weary of seeing every institution—from schools to corporations to national parks—pulled into ideological battles. The question for many taxpayers isn’t whether they agree or disagree with a particular cause. It’s why public employees should receive special exemptions from rules governing demonstrations on federal property.
The case also arrives amid the Trump administration’s broader effort to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and policies promoting gender ideology throughout the federal government. Supporters view those moves as a long-overdue course correction away from identity politics. Opponents see them as discriminatory.
For now, however, the legal drama is far less explosive than the political rhetoric surrounding it. The judge did not rule on the merits of Joslin’s constitutional claims. She ruled that the court lacked authority to hear them in the first place.
That may not satisfy activists looking for a blockbuster courtroom showdown. But in a legal system built on jurisdiction and process, sometimes the biggest headline is also the simplest: you can’t win a case in a court that doesn’t have the power to decide it.
