Ninth Circuit Court unanimously rejects California city’s attempt to ban beach yoga

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has refused to reconsider a ruling that struck down San Diego’s ban on group yoga classes in public parks and beaches.

RELATED: Private patios or public walkway? Court rules in Santa Cruz County beach dispute

Not a single judge on the appellate court voted to rehear the case — a rare signal of unanimity that leaves the earlier ruling intact and the city’s ban unenforceable.

The ruling is another win for yoga instructors Steve Hubbard — known as “NamaSteve” — and Amy Baack, who sued the city last year.

In June, a three-judge panel had ruled unanimously that teaching yoga is protected speech and that city officials had failed to show how the classes threaten public safety or prevent enjoyment of the city’s shoreline parks, overturning a lower court’s ruling.

The city appealed the Ninth Circuit decision, leading to Monday’s order. A spokesperson for the City Attorney’s Office declined to comment.

The legal battle stems from the city’s 2024 amendment to its street vendor ordinance that sought to clarify what types of activities qualify for free-speech protections in public spaces.

Under a 2018 state law that decriminalized sidewalk vending, cities were allowed to impose limited regulations if they focused only on health and safety, not keeping vendors out.

City officials argued that yoga — even when taught for free or by donation — is a commercial activity and not protected by the First Amendment. They grouped it in with massage, dog training, fitness classes, equipment rentals and companies that stage picnics or bonfires.

Officials said the restrictions were necessary to preserve public access to outdoor space. Commercial activities, they argued, can block pathways and obstruct scenic views.

They also said residents were upset by the increasing use of their favorite parks and beaches for commercial activities, including yoga classes.

Hubbard and Baack filed a lawsuit in federal court in June 2024, arguing that yoga is not a commercial service but a form of expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.

They noted that their classes are open to all and donations were “purely voluntary.”

“One could simply walk up and join a yoga class in a park,” the lawsuit said.

It also argued that the city did not seek to gather public input about the ban from town councils or planning groups.

Hubbard had taught free outdoor yoga in Palisades Park for nearly two decades without issue. After the crackdown, he says he shifted his classes to YouTube but kept getting citations because people would gather in the park to practice yoga while watching Hubbard on their phones.

Hubbard and Baack are still seeking damages, particularly for what they describe as retaliatory enforcement. They also have a parallel state lawsuit arguing yoga is an expressive activity and protected under the California Constitution.

Bryan Pease, who represented the plaintiffs with his partner Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi, said the city’s priorities have been misplaced.

“The city clearly does not actually care about public safety or protecting the cliffs,” Pease said. “Rangers could be citing illegal fishing, where men climb all over the cliffs and leave behind plastic pollution and fishing line that strangles wildlife. Instead, they were laser-focused on shutting down yoga.”