Ninth Circuit Tells City of San Diego to Take a Deep, Cleansing Breath on Yoga

Hubbard v. City of San Diego

​Is teaching yoga on the beach a protected First Amendment activity? Yes, according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed a lower court’s ruling and found that banning group yoga classes on the beach was an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech.
 
This case centered on Steven Hubbard and Amy Baack, yoga instructors who teach free classes in San Diego's shoreline parks. A 2024 city ordinance banned “teaching yoga” to groups of four or more in these parks, labeling it a prohibited “service” and excluding it from the city’s definition of “expressive activity.” This targeted restriction meant that yoga classes – even donation-based ones – were criminalized on the beach, while other forms of teaching or performance were permitted.
 
The Ninth Circuit firmly disagreed with the city’s claim that yoga instruction wasn’t expressive. The court recognized that yoga classes often involve the communication of philosophy and spiritual practice. As Buddha said, it is one way through which “peace comes from within.” The Ninth ruled: “A person who teaches yoga is communicating and disseminating information about this philosophy and practice through speech and expressive movements.”
 
The court found San Diego’s ordinance was “not content neutral” and therefore “presumptively unconstitutional.” Judge Holly Thomas wrote: “The Ordinance defines regulated speech by particular subject matter, drawing distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys.” That’s the very definition of a content-based restriction that must face strict scrutiny.
 
The city failed that test. It offered no credible reason why yoga posed a special threat to public safety or enjoyment. “The City has provided no explanation as to how teaching yoga would lead to harmful consequences,” the court stated, adding that “the Ordinance fails as hopelessly underinclusive” since it allows many similar group activities, from tai chi practitioners to actors performing Shakespeare.
 
The ruling is a reminder that expressive conduct isn’t limited to marches or speeches. It includes shared mindfulness, physical conditioning, and philosophical reflection – even on a beach. As the opinion explained, “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
 
The City of San Diego sought to narrowly define what counts as protected expression. The Ninth Circuit refused. And in doing so, it affirmed that public spaces are meant to be alive with diverse forms of expression – including yoga mats in the sand and sun salutations by the sea.
 
So, San Diego – you need to be more flexible!

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS