On June 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling overturning the City of San Diego's ban on teaching yoga in shoreline parks and beaches, finding that the city's ordinance violated the First Amendment rights of instructors like Hubbard and his co-plaintiff, Amy Baack. The ruling reverses a 2024 decision by a lower court that upheld San Diego’s enforcement of a municipal ordinance that barred fitness instruction - yoga included - in public shoreline areas unless a city permit was obtained.
The ordinance, updated in March 2024, explicitly prohibited "yoga, fitness classes, and other activities" as a "service" in parks and beaches without prior approval, even when classes were free or donation-based. It also excluded yoga from the city’s definition of “expressive activity,” making it illegal to teach to groups of four or more in certain public spaces like Sunset Cliffs and Pacific Beach. Instructors and participants reported being cited by park rangers and having their gatherings shut down, including livestreamed sessions filmed from private property that could be viewed from parks.
As a result, longtime instructors like Hubbard were effectively forced off the sand and into tele-video sessions, a shift that both limited public access to classes and chilled speech, the court found.
In a 19-page published opinion written by Judge Holly A. Thomas, the Ninth Circuit found that teaching yoga constitutes protected speech. The court emphasized that yoga, with its deep philosophical roots and instructional format involving verbal guidance and expressive movement, meets the standard for First Amendment protections.
"Teaching yoga is speech protected by the First Amendment," the opinion reads. "A person who teaches yoga communicates and disseminates information about yoga’s philosophy and practice through speech and expressive movements."
The ruling calls the City’s ban a content-based restriction that fails strict constitutional scrutiny. While the City claimed it enacted the ban to preserve public enjoyment and safety in parks, the court found no evidence that teaching yoga posed a legitimate threat warranting such sweeping regulation. The decision further criticized the City’s selective targeting of yoga, noting that other group activities like tai chi or Shakespeare readings were not similarly restricted.
Attorney Bryan Pease, who represented the yoga instructors, welcomed the ruling and criticized city leadership. “The City of San Diego's unconstitutional beach yoga ban is the latest example of failed city leadership using government resources to make quality of life worse instead of better,” he said. Pease further added, “The city allows SeaWorld to pollute Mission Bay and disturb people and animals for miles around with nightly fireworks explosions. Banning beach yoga while allowing fireworks pollution suggests that the city is more aligned with private commercial interests than with the public. Fortunately, we have a First Amendment to disallow such government overreach."
In a 19-page published opinion written by Judge Holly A. Thomas, the Ninth Circuit found that teaching yoga constitutes protected speech. The court emphasized that yoga, with its deep philosophical roots and instructional format involving verbal guidance and expressive movement, meets the standard for First Amendment protections.
"Teaching yoga is speech protected by the First Amendment," the opinion reads. "A person who teaches yoga communicates and disseminates information about yoga’s philosophy and practice through speech and expressive movements."
The ruling calls the City’s ban a content-based restriction that fails strict constitutional scrutiny. While the City claimed it enacted the ban to preserve public enjoyment and safety in parks, the court found no evidence that teaching yoga posed a legitimate threat warranting such sweeping regulation. The decision further criticized the City’s selective targeting of yoga, noting that other group activities like tai chi or Shakespeare readings were not similarly restricted.
Attorney Bryan Pease, who represented the yoga instructors, welcomed the ruling and criticized city leadership. “The City of San Diego's unconstitutional beach yoga ban is the latest example of failed city leadership using government resources to make quality of life worse instead of better,” he said. Pease further added, “The city allows SeaWorld to pollute Mission Bay and disturb people and animals for miles around with nightly fireworks explosions. Banning beach yoga while allowing fireworks pollution suggests that the city is more aligned with private commercial interests than with the public. Fortunately, we have a First Amendment to disallow such government overreach."
Hubbard and Baack challenged the ordinance in federal court shortly after receiving citations, filing a civil rights lawsuit that framed their instruction as expressive conduct protected under the Constitution. While the district court initially sided with the City, the Ninth Circuit’s reversal paves the way not only for the instructors to return to the beach but also for a broader legal reassessment of the City’s regulation of public gatherings and speech.
The court has ordered the lower court to enter a preliminary injunction in favor of Hubbard and Baack, effectively blocking the City from enforcing its yoga ban while the case continues. Notably, the judges left open the question of whether the ordinance itself is unconstitutional on its face—an issue that may still be litigated further.
In the meantime, Hubbard plans to resume in-person classes by the water, where he has built a devoted following over the past decade. With this decision, San Diego joins a growing list of cities where courts have reaffirmed the constitutional protections for peaceful assembly and instructional speech—even when delivered from a yoga mat on the sand.
The court has ordered the lower court to enter a preliminary injunction in favor of Hubbard and Baack, effectively blocking the City from enforcing its yoga ban while the case continues. Notably, the judges left open the question of whether the ordinance itself is unconstitutional on its face—an issue that may still be litigated further.
In the meantime, Hubbard plans to resume in-person classes by the water, where he has built a devoted following over the past decade. With this decision, San Diego joins a growing list of cities where courts have reaffirmed the constitutional protections for peaceful assembly and instructional speech—even when delivered from a yoga mat on the sand.
Originally published on June 4, 2025.
