By OB Rag Staff / June 6, 2025
In a decision that has received international “only in California” news coverage, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that San Diego’s 2024 ban on teaching yoga at shoreline parks and beaches is unconstitutional.
The judgement, which reversed a lower court ruling that yoga instruction is not protected by the First Amendment, clears the way for plaintiffs Steven Hubbard (aka “NamaSteve”) and Amy Baack to resume their fee-optional oceanfront yoga instruction.
For their 19-page opinion, Steve Hubbard, Amy Baack v. City of San Diego, No. 24-4613, the three-judge appellate panel reached back into the annals of yoga case law. They cited a 2015 9th Circuit ruling, Bikram’s Yoga College v. Evolation Yoga, No. 13-55763, which held that “a sequence of yoga poses and breathing exercises was not entitled to copyright protection.”
Along with First Amendment issues, the panel also addressed the City’s argument that “allowing Hubbard and Baack to teach yoga at shoreline parks ‘would lead to harmful public consequences to the City’s safe and effective regulation of its parks and beaches.’”
“Although public safety is a compelling interest,” the judges wrote, “the City has provided no explanation as to how teaching yoga would lead to harmful consequences to these interests, or even what those consequences might be. … Nor does the City even attempt to explain how teaching yoga presents a greater threat to public safety and enjoyment than teaching other subjects.”
The Associated Press (AP) reported that Hubbard “was back teaching yoga in a San Diego beachfront park on Thursday, the day after [the ruling] … ‘We’re all happy to be back,’ Hubbard said.”
The AP story was picked up nationwide, from Connecticut (Greenwich Time) to Michigan (Huron Daily Tribune) to Texas (Laredo Morning Times). The ruling also was covered by U.S. News & World Report, The Toronto Star, and The Independent (UK).
The City Attorney’s office is reviewing the decision to determine next steps.
Perhaps those who don’t like this decision might consider exercising their own First Amendment rights by driving by these groups and honking their horns and shouting unpleasantries. Seriously, I wonder whether the 9th Circuit was sending a message to the City that they needed to flesh out the public safety argument and perhaps will allow a rehearing on this issue. Why also is this not a private taking of public property? Thanks for allowing me to vent about this, but it’s another crowding/clogging of the Cliffs.
/s/ Chris Kennedy
Our city attorneys couldn’t argue their way out of a paper bag. It’s clearly a commercial use of public park space, and should require a permit as any other business would. We don’t need to debate the merits of yoga.
Can the City still require a permit for gatherings of 10 or more people?
yoga is good,
business of yoga is bad
occupying public space for good or bad is invasive
yoga should not be invasive, defensive or contentious…
kinda defeats the purpose of yoga
dosent it?
Oh yeah, one more thought about yogas:
Butts up, you downward facing dogs
I thought the issue was that public spaces were becoming overcrowded by commercial interests seeking to avoid payment of rent by expropriating public space for their income-generating activities. It’s not just about yoga, but about any classes for fees on public property. Why would the city say it was about yoga rather than about conversion of public space into commercial activity that crowded out the public?
Keith, it was or should be, but I don’t think that was the issue litigated.
The law was poorly written.
Whether it’s expression seems irrelevant. They’re running a commercial enterprise of 100+ people on sensitive public parkland. They should all be subject to the same laws and treatment.
Maybe I’ll open up my free speech bakery on the cliffs too. And when I get shut down I’ll cry that the city is trying to outlaw cinnamon rolls.
I think the decision was made by a panel of the 9th Circuit Judges (don’t quote me on that), not the entire group of Judges. I am not a litigator, but perhaps the City can petition for a re-hearing in front of all the Judges on many of the issues people have raised here and the public safety issue that the Court apparently felt was a compelling interest but was not argued in any detail by the City. I am glad to see most people commenting seem to agree that this decision has created a mess (love the “free speech bakery” comment—if all else fails remember my “car horns and unpleasantries” alternative, comment #1, above!)
/s/ Chris Kennedy
don’t forget the 9th circuit i believe recently ruled that honking horns as a protest is illegal.
I’d like to invite all of you to my new donation-based yoga class on the 805 freeway at 5pm, see you then. We’ll be in the 4th and 5th lane just before the Genessee exit. Yoga is protected speech so it must be legal.
Judging by the comments, I will certainly catch some flack for this. Isn’t the use of the “public” land a good thing? It appears the class is only 90 minutes per week. The instructor SHOULD be paying taxes on any income over the federal minimum (I believe is $600). Those taxes from the income I can only assume is a “side hustle”, help pay for that park. Is it not similar to an Uber driver using the public roads for commercial business? They pay the taxes on income and gasoline/registration just like anyone else.
Having said that, I tend to agree if there are other people that are being inconvenienced and are not able to use the space. Of course, if there are any permit requirements (such as the mentioned gathering of 10 or more people), that should also be followed.
I’m undoubtedly missing some point of view from some of the commenters here. Please help me understand what I can’t see obviously.
One thing I would like to ask, I keep hearing people say that this prohibits access to the beach for other people. Can someone explain how it prohibits access to the beach? are there 1000’s of people taking up all of ocean beach, mission beach, pacific beach, La Jolla doing yoga all day everyday? or is it a couple of hundred spread out between a couple of public spaces along the beaches? Size matters. I can tell you other than trying to find parking at any of the beaches, that I have never seen a beach I could not access because of yoga classes, or a wedding, or a group event of locals. I have however had problems accessing the beach when a city planned event is going on and they fence off an area of the beach. But that is the only problems I have ever had getting to the beach even when there was 1000’s of vendors in the city, I could still access public space without issues, even when the space is flooded with tourists… Never tried on the 4th or other big holidays because of traffic, but literally traffic has always been more of an issue for me than anything else. So I am curious, how is it no one can access the beach or is it just because you can’t access’s one little tiny area of grass along the beach 1 or 2 hours a week? just trying to get clarity.
Steven Hubbard and his yoga classes in PB on Law Street are a much bigger issue that yoga on the cliffs. He has essentially made the park on Law Street his personal yoga studio, that he pays nothing for, but 100s donate $20/session every week. And I think we all know that his tax accounting is likely not that great.
Just check out his own website to see the crowds he attracts. The park is not available to anyone else Saturday and Sunday mornings. For example, families wanting to set up their kid’s bday party can’t: https://namasteve-yoga.com/
I know several yoga instructors that would like to see him shut down because he is taking away business from yoga studios that are paying rent, employing others, pay taxes, provide bathrooms to their paying customers etc… NamaSteve on the other hand may be making over $10k per week while doing done of that.
Lets assume he takes up that entire grass spot by law street 2 hours a day 7 days a week. that means the grass is open the rest of the time each day. That entire area is big enough that he can do his thing and there is plenty of space on the beach and other grass areas along the beach so families can set up parties or what ever else they want to. It appears to be a little more about jealously and control issues than anything else.