Non-Profit Hopes Its Lawsuit Against the NPS is the Key to Yosemite

Despite it being arguably one of the best natural spots for the activity, Yosemite National Park has been off limits to BASE jumpers for nearly 50 years. Now, a nonprofit called BASE Access is suing in federal court, arguing the ban is unconstitutional and that Yosemite should reopen to legal jumps.

BASE jumping was born in Yosemite in the late 1970s, when skydivers Mike Pelkey and Brian Schubert jumped from the 3,000-foot El Capitan cliff. However, the National Park Service quickly moved to shut it down under its “aerial delivery” rule, which prohibits parachutes or aircraft from dropping people or supplies into park land.

The Park Service argues that its rules are essential to protect natural resources and public safety, just like restrictions on cutting trees or dumping trash. The agency has only ever allowed one exception: West Virginia’s Bridge Day festival, a long-running BASE jumping event at the New River Gorge bridge. Rangers at Yosemite have long taken a hard line, arresting jumpers on federal misdemeanors that can result in jail time, probation, and permanent records.

BASE Access president Brendan Weinstein, a software engineer and longtime jumper, claims that this kind of enforcement culture makes the sport more dangerous. To avoid detection, athletes often leap in low-light conditions or flee rangers mid-descent. These risks have contributed to fatalities, including the deaths of famed jumper Dean Potter in 2015 and Frank Gambalie in 2001. The organization also notes that the NPS allows other ‘dangerous’ sports, like hang gliding, climbing, and skiing, while singling out BASE jumpers.

The lawsuit was filed in Texas earlier this year, challenging the NPS’s authority to criminalize parachute use without a law from Congress explicitly banning the activity. Attorneys for the group are relying on recent Supreme Court decisions that narrowed agency powers, particularly the 2024 Loper Bright ruling that weakened the doctrine of agency deference. They argue that letting NPS effectively create new criminal law violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. A hearing is set for October.

FMI: www.baseaccess.org