Ninth Circuit Rules That Teaching Yoga in Public Parks Is Protected Speech

With a combined 20 years of legal experience working with business clients, we’ve seen how the First Amendment shows up in unexpected places. A recent Ninth Circuit decision out of San Diego reminds us that speech isn’t limited to political slogans or protest signs. Sometimes, it’s as simple as leading a sun salutation in the park.

The Case: Hubbard v. City of San Diego

In Hubbard v. City of San Diego, two yoga instructors were offering free classes in public shoreline parks. The City passed an ordinance banning yoga instruction to groups of four or more without a permit. The instructors sued, arguing that the ordinance violated their First Amendment rights. The trial court sided with the City. But on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed course, holding that this kind of instruction is protected speech.

Why Yoga Instruction Counts as Speech

At first glance, yoga might seem like a physical activity, not a form of expression. But the Court recognized something essential: when someone teaches yoga, they are doing more than guiding movement. They are sharing ideas. Instructors talk about posture, breath, and the philosophy behind the practice. They often speak in a way that encourages reflection, mindfulness, and connection. They use language and movement to communicate meaning.

The First Amendment protects not just what we say, but how we express ideas verbally or physically. Just like a dance performance or a theatrical play, yoga can be expressive conduct. It’s not just about the pose. It’s about the message being conveyed through that pose.

This principle isn’t new, but the Court applied it in a refreshingly thoughtful way. It acknowledged that the act of teaching particularly when it involves guided speech, shared understanding, and public participation is expressive enough to qualify as protected speech.

Why the City’s Ban Didn’t Hold Up

The Court took issue with the City’s ordinance because it singled out yoga. People could gather in the park for other reasons, but as soon as someone started giving yoga instruction to a small group, the City said a permit was required. That made the rule content-based—it targeted a particular kind of message.

And under the First Amendment, when a government targets speech because of its content, it must meet the highest level of scrutiny. It must show that the rule serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored. The City said the rule was about managing use of the park, but the Court found no real evidence that these quiet, non-commercial yoga classes were causing harm. In other words, the government couldn’t justify why it was singling out this form of expression.

The Bigger Picture

This case isn’t just about yoga. It’s about teaching, sharing, and leading in public spaces. Whether it’s a cooking demo, a free self-defense class, or a spoken word circle, if someone is using their words and actions to communicate ideas, that’s speech.

And when speech takes place in a public park—one of the most traditional public forums in American law—it is entitled to the strongest protections. Governments can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. But they can’t ban particular content unless they have a compelling reason, and they can’t define that reason with a broad brush.

What Employers and Public Entities Should Know

If you’re a public entity or manage public spaces, this case is a reminder to review your policies with care. Rules that single out certain forms of instruction or expression—especially when they target the message—are vulnerable to legal challenge.

And for professionals who teach, speak, or lead in public spaces, this decision is an affirmation: your work has expressive value. Teaching is not just a service. It’s a form of communication, often deeply tied to values and beliefs.

In the end, the Ninth Circuit reminded us that speech doesn’t have to be loud or political to be protected. Sometimes, it’s quiet. It’s measured. It’s the voice of someone saying, “breathe in, breathe out” and that, too, deserves our constitutional respect.

*This publication is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal or financial advice, nor do they necessarily reflect the views of Lido Law Group, APC, or any of its attorneys other than the author(s). This publication is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Lido Law Group, APC. Substantive changes in the law subsequent to the date of this publication might affect the analysis or commentary. Similarly, the analysis may differ depending on the jurisdiction or circumstances. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.