Kaitlin Bennett’s Attorney to NPS: Dismiss Charge or Face Lawsuit
January 22, 2026
Office of Professional Responsibility
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Sent via email only to: OPR@NPS.GOV
Re: Formal Complaint Against NPS Ranger ██████████ for Alleged Misconduct and First Amendment Violation at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument
Dear Office of Professional Responsibility:
This letter serves as a formal complaint on behalf of our client, Kaitlin Bennett, regarding an incident that occurred on January 20, 2026, at the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument in St. Augustine, Florida. Ms. Bennett is a media personality and host of Liberty Hangout, and she is represented by Remnant Law in this matter.1
While we deeply respect the difficult and often challenging work performed daily by law enforcement officers, including National Park Service rangers who protect our public lands and ensure visitor safety, we respectfully submit that the actions taken in this instance by Ranger ██████████ [Badge ███] exceeded lawful authority and violated Ms. Bennett’s First Amendment rights. We allege that Ranger █████ in misconduct by issuing an unlawful order and citation that involved viewpoint discrimination and prior restraint, resulting in the improper restriction of protected newsgathering activities. We request a thorough investigation, dismissal of the citation, and appropriate remedial actions, including proper training on protected speech and viewpoint neutrality.
Background and Facts
On January 20, 2026, Ms. Bennett and her small team (including cameraman Adam Francisco, totaling fewer than six individuals) were present at the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, a federal property managed by the National Park Service.2 The monument grounds are a traditional public forum open to the public, where First Amendment protections for speech, assembly, and newsgathering apply with full force, subject only to reasonable, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions.3 Ms. Bennett was there to engage in protected First Amendment activities, specifically filming and conducting consensual interviews as a member of the media during a permitted anti-ICE and anti-Trump protest organized by the group 50501.
As we understand it, the anti-ICE and anti-Trump protest was held in a designated area pursuant to an NPS permit for demonstrations involving more than 25 participants, per 36 CFR § 7.96. However, Ms. Bennett was not participating as a protester or counterprotester; she identified herself repeatedly as media conducting newsgathering activities. Her activities involved approaching protesters with questions, such as inquiries about their views on immigration policy, in a peaceful and non-disruptive manner. Video footage confirms that interactions were verbal, consensual where engaged, and did not involve blocking paths, inciting violence, or interfering with the event’s operations. No permit was required for her small group’s filming activities under the recently enacted EXPLORE Act (effective January 2025),4 which exempts groups of fewer than six from permitting requirements for non- commercial or commercial filming with handheld equipment.
During the event, the protest organizer (referred to as “Comrade Kat”) allegedly accused Ms. Bennett of being a counterprotester and provoking participants due to her conservative viewpoints and challenging questions. Comrade Kat then allegedly complained to NPS rangers, when Ranger █████ promptly arrived on a bicycle and ordered Ms. Bennett to relocate to “First Amendment Area Number Five,” a designated zone purportedly for counterprotesters. Ranger █████ cited the protest’s permit of Comrade Kat as justification, incorrectly implying it granted exclusive use of the area to the protesters. The Superintendent’s Compendium designates multiple First Amendment demonstration areas (Areas 1-5, as shown in the map of Designated First Amendment Demonstration Areas on page 13 of the Compendium), available for demonstrations without a permit for groups of 25 or fewer without structures. The Compendium describes these areas as “in a prominent area that will allow individuals and groups to conduct demonstrations in a manner that will allow for effective communication of speech and other protected activities,” and emphasizes that regulations apply to “conduct associated with the exercise of these rights” rather than “the content of the message.”5
Ms. Bennett objected, asserting repeatedly that she was not counterprotesting but engaging in protected journalistic activities on public property. She questioned the permit’s scope, noting that NPS permits do not confer exclusive rights to public spaces and cannot be used to exclude non-disruptive individuals. Despite this, Ranger █████ detained her briefly and issued a federal violation notice under 36 CFR § 2.32(a)(2) for violating a lawful order of a government employee authorized to maintain order and control public access and movement. The citation imposes a $500 fine plus a $30 processing fee (total $530), payable or contestable in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Jacksonville. Ranger █████ warned that returning to the area could result in arrest or additional charges. Protesters were emboldened by their use of the Ranger to expel Ms. Bennett, cheered the citation, further indicating that the action may have been influenced by partisan complaints rather than neutral enforcement.
Notably, other media personnel (e.g., local journalist Brennan Ambrose) were present in the same area and were not similarly restricted or cited, suggesting selective enforcement and viewpoint discrimination based on Ms. Bennett’s perceived political views.
Allegations of Misconduct and Violations
We allege the following:
1. Viewpoint Discrimination: Ranger █████ actions appear to have been motivated by the content of Ms. Bennett’s speech and the protesters’ objections to her conservative perspective. Labeling her as a “counterprotester” without evidence and enforcing relocation selectively constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination, prohibited under the First Amendment even in nonpublic forums. The ranger’s reliance on partisan complaints from the protest organizer favored the protesters’ anti-ICE and anti-Trump narrative while suppressing Ms. Bennett’s First Amendment right to conduct journalistic activities. This selective enforcement is evident from the presence of other media personnel (e.g., local journalist Brennan Ambrose) who were not relocated or cited, mirroring patterns of favoritism challenged by the ACLU in similar NPS access denials (e.g., the 2015 Yellowstone bison observation case, where restrictions were deemed viewpoint-based). Most importantly, this violates established precedents, including those under the public forum doctrine as articulated in cases like Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) and Boardley v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 615 F.3d 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010), where the court invalidated NPS permit requirements that penalized small-group expression based on perceived opposition to official views. Furthermore, the Superintendent’s Compendium explicitly states that First Amendment area designations regulate “conduct associated with the exercise of these rights… and not the content of the message,” yet the order appears to have been applied based on the content of Ms. Bennett’s questions.
2. Unlawful Order and Restriction on Protected Activity: The order to relocate was not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. It was not narrowly tailored to a significant government interest (e.g., no evidence of actual disruption or safety concerns) and did not leave ample alternative channels for expression, as it effectively segregated Ms. Bennett based on her alleged views. Filming and newsgathering in public forums are well established as protected under the First Amendment, as confirmed in cases like Price v. Garland, 45 F.4th 136 (D.C. Cir. 2022). Ms. Bennett’s small team (fewer than six individuals) was engaged in newsgathering and interviewing using only handheld equipment in an area open to the public. Such activity is expressly exempt from any permit or fee requirement under the Federal Interior Land Media (FILM) Act, enacted as part of the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences Act (EXPLORE Act), Pub. L. No. 118-234, § 125 (Jan. 4, 2025), codified at 54 U.S.C. § 100905.
The statute provides that no permit is required for filming, still photography, or audio recording involving fewer than six individuals when the activity: (1) occurs in areas open to the public, (2) uses only hand-carried equipment, (3) does not require exclusive use of a site, (4) does not adversely impact park resources, values, or visitors, and (5) is not located in a very high-visitation localized area. All conditions were satisfied here. In Price, the court emphasized that NPS filming restrictions burden expressive activity without sufficient justification. Here, Ms. Bennett’s non-disruptive journalistic activities with handheld equipment required no permit, rendering the order an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The citation for disobeying this order is thus invalid.6
3. Overapplication of Permit Regulations: NPS permits for demonstrations do not grant exclusive use of public spaces; they coordinate events but cannot exclude non- disruptive individuals. Enforcing the permit in this manner exceeds NPS authority under 36 CFR § 7.96 and related regulations. Ranger █████ failed to exercise discretion neutrally, potentially influenced by the protesters’ complaints, leading to arbitrary and capricious enforcement. This raises concerns about training and adherence to NPS policies on free speech zones and visitor rights. While the Superintendent’s Compendium designates multiple First Amendment areas (Areas 1-5, as shown on the map on page 13), the order to relocate Ms. Bennett to Area 5 appears to have been applied selectively based on her perceived viewpoints rather than neutral criteria, contrary to the Compendium’s statement that the areas are designed “to allow for effective communication of speech and other protected activities” and regulate only conduct, not message content.
These actions not only infringe on Ms. Bennett’s constitutional rights but also undermine public trust in NPS enforcement, particularly in managing expressive activities on federal lands.
Requested Relief
We respectfully request that the Office of Professional Responsibility:
a. Conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into Ranger ██████████ conduct, including review of body camera footage, witness statements, and video evidence that has been made available by Ms. Bennett. This investigation should extend to ranger training protocols to identify and prevent patterns of arbitrary enforcement and viewpoint discrimination, particularly on perceived journalistic activities so rangers may govern themselves accordingly.
b. Recommend dismissal of the citation (Violation Notice No. [E2109449]) and expungement from Ms. Bennett’s record on the grounds that the underlying order violated the express statutory exemption for small-group filming and newsgathering under Pub. L. No. 118-234, § 125 (codified at 54 U.S.C. § 100905), in addition to First Amendment protections.
c. Implement corrective measures, such as retraining Ranger █████ and relevant staff on First Amendment protections, viewpoint neutrality, proper application of demonstration permits, the requirements and exemptions set forth in the FILM Act (Pub. L. No. 118-234, § 125), and the Superintendent’s Compendium.
d. Ms. Bennett respectfully requests a written response to this complaint within 30 days, including findings and actions taken.
Should this matter not be promptly and properly addressed, Ms. Bennett reserves all rights to pursue further legal remedies, including challenging the citation in federal court and potential civil claims for constitutional violations. Although we hope this matter will be resolved administratively and viewed as an opportunity for additional training to ensure full understanding and consistent application of First Amendment protections in future similar circumstances on NPS-managed lands, we stand ready to proceed as necessary. We remain available to provide additional evidence, including video footage, upon request. Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions.
Very Respectfully,
Jonathan K. Hullihan
President and General Counsel
Remnant Law
CC: Harmeet K. Dhillon
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Gregory W. Kehoe
United States Attorney
Middle District of Florida
Hon. Doug Burgum
Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
- Remnant Law is a nonprofit litigation, education, and public policy organization that provides pro bono assistance and representation across the country on First Amendment and constitutional issues for the benefit of the general public with affiliated local counsel licensed in their respective states.
- Federal Ownership and Administration: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument consists of approximately 20.18 federal acres (with minor non-federal portions historically addressed via legislation, such as Public Law 108-480 in 2004 for street transfers). It has been under continuous federal control since 1821, with no indication of retained state jurisdiction post-transfer.
- See United States v. Silberman, 464 F. Supp. 866, 869 (M.D. Fla. 1979) (explicitly recognizing Castillo de San Marcos National Monument as a ‘public forum area’); Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983) (traditional public forums include public parks and similar spaces historically open for assembly and debate); cf. NPS Superintendent’s Compendium for Castillo de San Marcos (Jan. 13, 2026) (designating areas for First Amendment activities on the grounds while affirming protected expressive use, and stating that “It is the conduct associated with the exercise of these rights that is regulated and not the content of the message”).
- Pub. L. No. 118-234, § 125 (codified at 54 U.S.C. § 100905)
- Available at NPS.gov website, https://www.nps.gov/casa/learn/management/upload/CASA-Compendium-Jan-2026-508C.pdf
- The order effectively enforced a “heckler’s veto,” an impermissible form of viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. The protesters’ offense at Ms. Bennett’s mere presence and questions—without any evidence of her disruption—prompted the ranger to restrict her speech, allowing hostile audience reactions to dictate access in a traditional public forum. Courts have long rejected such vetoes, holding that the government may not suppress protected expression to appease offended listeners or prevent anticipated unrest; instead, it must protect the speaker and address any actual misconduct by opponents. See, e.g., Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134–35 (1992) (invalidating permit fees based on anticipated hostile reactions); Bible Believers v. Wayne County, 805 F.3d 228, 252–53 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (heckler’s veto is “odious viewpoint discrimination”); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 133 (1966) (silent protest protected despite crowd hostility). Here, the ranger accommodated the protesters’ partisan objections rather than neutrally enforcing conduct-based rules, as required by the Superintendent’s Compendium (emphasizing regulation of “conduct … and not the content of the message”).