Legal Battle Over NPS's Refusal To Accept Cash Continues

A legal battle over the National Park Service's expanding refusal to accept cash payments for entrance fees and gift shop purchases is being appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The case dates to early 2024 when a group of plaintiffs sued the Park Service, arguing that the cashless policy is unreasonable, an abuse of discretion, and that federal law states that legal tender is suitable "for all public charges."

Last month U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly dismissed the case, agreeing with Justice Department attorneys who maintained the remaining defendant, Toby Stover, had failed to show that she had been harmed by the policy and because "the statute on which she relies to characterize the alleged cashless program as unlawful, does not require the Park Service to accept cash for the services it provides."

The original lawsuit was filed in March 2024 by three plaintiffs: Stover, of High Falls, New York; Esther van der Werf of Ojai, California, and; Elizabeth Dasburg, of Darien, Georgia. Dashburg and van der Werf ended their challenge when Kelly dismissed that lawsuit, ruling that most of the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, mainly because they were never actually denied entry to a national park and because they couldn't make a plausible argument that a park requiring payment via a credit card in the future would cause them irrevocable harm.

The amended complaint filed last March expanded on the constitutional and statutory issues that the Park Service allegedly violates with the cashless policy. It also maintained Stover was harmed every time she tried to visit the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a national historic site, at Hyde Park, New York, because it won't accept cash for the $15 entrance fee, a point noted on the park's website.

In asking Kelly to dismiss Stover's amended complaint, U.S. Attorney Edward Martin, Jr., pointed out that Stover "does not allege that she lacks access to credit or debit cards and thus was unable to use those forms of payment to satisfy the entrance fee. Her contention instead is that she was unable to pay by her preferred method, cash, and chose not to pay by other available means based on principle, namely, her alleged belief that it is her lawful right to pay in cash."

Martin also reiterated past arguments accepted by the court that Stover lacks standing to bring the case because she did not prove that she actually was injured by the Park Service's policy. More so, he wrote in seeking dismissal, there is no requirement under the U.S. Code that the Park Service must accept cash for payments.

"Section 5103 [of the U.S. Code] is properly understood as merely identifying United States 'coins and currency' and 'Federal reserve notes' as legal tender that can discharge a debt," he wrote. "It has no bearing on 'whether a provider of goods or services is obligated to take a certain payment device.'”

Martin's motion to dismiss the case is attached below.

Stover's attorney on December 18 filed notice that he would appeal the ruling.