WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - The National Park Service is defending its choice to stop accepting cash as it fights a federal lawsuit alleging it violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
The three plaintiffs in the case haven't shown they lack access to methods of payment that aren't cash, the NPS said in a motion to dismiss filed June 6 in D.C. federal court. That means they can't show they've been harmed by the new policy, it adds.
"None allege that they lacked access to credit or debit cards, or other non-cash methods of payment, and were thus unable to use those forms of payment to satisfy the entrance fee," the motion says.
"Their contention instead appears to be that they were unable to pay by their preferred method, cash, and 'chose not to' pay by other available methods based on principle, namely, their alleged belief it was 'their lawful right to pay in cash.'"
Plaintiffs Esther van der Werf, Toby Stover and Elizabeth Dasburg created headlines when they filed their complaint in March. Their lawsuit says the NPS has implemented and expanded a cashless entrance-fee payment scheme at 29 national parks, historic sites, monuments and national historic parks around the country.
Citing U.S. Code, cash is legal tender for "all public charges," they said. "Thus," they added, "NPS' refusal to accept U.S. currency tendered for entrance fees constitutes a clear violation of federal law."
There are about 6 million households without bank accounts, the complaint says. Access to certain locations have "foreclosed access" to those who pay their debts in cash, the suit says.
It asks a federal judge to declare this policy as unlawful. San Diego lawyer Ray Flores II represents the plaintiffs.
NPS says there is no official "cashless entrance-fee payment" policy, but even if there were, the plaintiffs haven't shown they were harmed by it. And that policy doesn't violated Section 5103, which says coins and currency are legal tender for all debts, NPS says.
"(Section 5103) has no bearing o 'whether a provider of goods and services is obligated to take a certain payment device,'" the motion to dismiss says.
"And, regardless, non-cash methods of payment - such as by credit or debit card - are not a restriction on 'the substance of payment but on its form.'"
That part of the motion cites a Sixth Circuit ruling from 2009 that requires dealers paying for air conditioning coils with checks or money orders.