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.