Yoga determined to be a free speech activity

In a recent First Amendment case of municipal Interest, Hubbard v. City of San Diego (9th Cir. June 4, 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that yoga is a protected free speech activity under the First Amendment.

In 2024, the City of San Diego enacted an ordinance prohibiting teaching yoga to four or more persons at the City’s shoreline parks or beaches without the City’s permission. The ordinance also defined teaching yoga as a non-expressive activity. Two yoga instructors who offer free classes at City shoreline parks challenged the ordinance on First Amendment grounds after park rangers informed them that they could no longer teach yoga at the shoreline parks. The district court ruled in favor of the City and the yoga instructors appealed.

The Ninth Circuit first determined that the First Amendment protects teaching yoga, explaining that yoga teachers are “communicating and disseminating information about [yoga’s] philosophy through speech and expressive movements.” The Court next held that the City’s shoreline parks are traditional public forums. The City argued that the ordinance was content neutral because it “furthers the City’s substantial government interest of preserving the City’s parks and beaches for the public.” However, the Court disagreed and determined that the ordinance was content-based and therefore was not a valid time, place, and manner restriction. The Court accordingly applied the “strict scrutiny” analysis under the First Amendment and found the City had failed to demonstrate any plausible connection between teaching yoga and any threat to the public safety and enjoyment in the City’s shoreline parks. The Court noted that the City did not prohibit teaching various other subjects, (which, like yoga, potentially involve physical movement) to four or more people at the shoreline parks and had offered no explanation as to why teaching yoga presents a greater threat to public safety or enjoyment than any other subject.

Although this decision is not binding on Missouri, which is in the Eighth Circuit, municipalities should keep in mind that such restrictions may implicate First Amendment protections.