Videographers Sue NPS Over Denied Permits at Grand Teton National Park, WY

Picture three people standing next to each other in Yellowstone National Park. One’s an ordinary tourist, one’s a news reporter, and the third’s a documentary filmmaker. They’re all filming Old Faithful, using the exact same iPhone, and without disturbing anyone around them. Under federal law, the tourist and the reporter are doing nothing wrong. But the documentarian could face heavy fines, even jail time.

That’s why the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed a lawsuit on behalf of nature and sports photographers and filmmakers Alexander Rienzie and Connor Burkesmith. FIRE’s suit aims to overturn the National Park Service’s onerous, arbitrary, and unconstitutional permit-and-fee scheme that charges Americans for the right to film in public spaces.

“The national parks belong to the American public,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “If you have a right to be there, you have a right to film there. The federal government can’t tax Americans to exercise their constitutional rights.”

Rienzie and Burkesmith wanted to film in Grand Teton National Park in September to document an attempt by athlete, Michelino Sunseri, to break the record for the fastest climb up the Grand Teton. They planned to have only two or three people, using small handheld cameras and tripods, on the 16-mile route for the shoot. In fact, to keep up with the fast pace of the speedrun, they would carry less gear than the typical climber going up the mountain.

At first it appeared that Sunseri broke the Fastest Known Time on the Grand Teton, but it was later revoked due to him cutting a switchback, which was a violation of the National Park Service (NPS) regulations intended to protect the environment from erosion. He was charged with a citation for his actions.

• Related: Runner Who Cut Switchback on Latest Grand Teton, WY, FKT Attempt Facing Charges

Under current law, whether a filmmaker needs a permit to film in a national park doesn’t depend on the amount of gear they bring or how disruptive filming might be. The only thing that matters is whether their purpose is “commercial.” The rule could apply to filming a big blockbuster movie near the Grand Canyon (where the scale of the project might justify a permit requirement), but also to a small-time YouTuber who posts a video of their jog through the National Mall.

“Congress wanted to keep big Hollywood productions from taking over the parks and keeping others from enjoying their natural beauty,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner. “But the current law wasn’t written for a world where anyone with a smartphone has a film studio in their pocket.”

Rienzie and Burkesmith knew they might use the footage to produce a documentary film, so they filed for a permit and explained how small their impact would be. But NPS employees have wide and unquestioned discretion under the law to deny permits. NPS denied the permit on the grounds that it could turn the speedrun into a “competitive event”— and pocketed the non-refundable $325 application fee.

“Independent filmmakers don’t have the resources of the big production companies,” Burkesmith said. “It’s a gut punch every time we throw down hundreds of dollars, only to be denied permits for reasons that are vague, arbitrary, and unfair. As someone who needs to film outdoor sports where they happen, it’s a threat to my livelihood.”

Rienzie and Burkesmith were forced to choose between risking prosecution or letting a potentially historic event go undocumented. For dedicated documentarians like themselves, it was an easy choice: They filmed without the permit in September.

“In the entire time we were up there, we didn’t get in the way of anyone else’s enjoyment of Grand Teton,” Rienzie said. “To us, the Grand is a very special mountain that we’ve spent countless hours exploring.”

An NPS spokesperson later announced they had determined that Rienzie and Burkesmith’s actions didn’t meet all the criteria for charges—but if their work had been featured “in a commercial or a catalog or something like that,” it would be “less of a gray area.” Far from settling the issue, the NPS statement effectively signaled that the two could still face charges if they ever sell or use their footage.

FIRE is seeking an injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming to prevent that outcome, and to put a permanent end to a system where individual park employees can deny Americans their First Amendment rights on a whim.

Joining FIRE’s lawsuit is the National Press Photographers Association, which represents thousands of visual journalists, including Rienzie and Burkesmith. Although the NPS exempts filming for “news-gathering” from the permit scheme, the NPAA has for years argued that the law imposes an unfair burden on photographers and filmographers, who can’t always know ahead of time who they plan to sell their work to, or even if they plan to sell it at all.

“For decades, the National Press Photographers Association has been working to support the rights of visual journalists and other photographers to document the beauty of our natural resources and the people who visit and care for them in our national parks,” said NPPA President Carey Wagner. “It is unfortunate that the actions and policies of the National Park Service have never fully respected the First Amendment rights of photographers, and it’s even more disappointing that it has become necessary to take the Park Service to court in order to resolve our members’ concerns. NPPA is enormously grateful to FIRE for taking on this case on behalf of all photographers.”

“I chose this line of work because I love the national parks,” said Burkesmith. “Photographers and videographers are the best advocates the parks have; the more people see and understand their unique value, the stronger their desire to protect them. It’s time for the Park Service to stop throwing up roadblocks and work with us, not against us.”

This lawsuit highlights a contentious debate at the intersection of First Amendment rights and public land management. While proponents argue that the current permit system stifles creativity and unfairly penalizes small-scale filmmakers, the National Park Service maintains that its policies are intended to protect these cherished spaces for future generations. Whether the law will change to accommodate evolving technology and filmmaking practices remains to be seen. For now, the case raises important questions about how public lands can balance accessibility, preservation, and free expression in a world where anyone can be a filmmaker.