San Diego’s legal battle over yoga classes in public parks

By the Editorial Team · Thursday, October 1, 2026

San Diego officials faced a legal battle after citing yoga instructors for holding donation-based classes in a public park without permits, which a federal appeals court later ruled violated First Amendment protections. The dispute underscores the challenges cities face balancing regulatory efforts and constitutional rights, with San Diego incurring significant financial costs amid criticism over its enforcement tactics.

San Diego city officials have been engaged in a legal dispute for more than two years regarding yoga classes held in a public park overlooking the Pacific Ocean. The conflict began when city authorities challenged instructors Steve Hubbard and Amy Baack over their donation-supported yoga sessions, which the city contends require permits under local regulations. These permits, which cost approximately $6 per hour, are mandated for group activities in city parks.

The issue intensified in 2025 after Hubbard and Baack were cited several times, including for broadcasting yoga classes from their homes to viewers gathered in the park. This enforcement action raised questions about First Amendment protections for expressive conduct. In June 2025, a federal appeals court ruled that yoga instruction constitutes protected speech and does not require a permit, a decision that challenged the city's regulatory approach.

The crackdown originated when San Diego officials increased enforcement following a state law that decriminalized sidewalk vending. The city broadened its scrutiny to include yoga and other expressive activities, aiming to regulate the use of public spaces more strictly. This expanded enforcement coincided with the city's efforts to address a significant budget deficit, prompting officials to seek additional revenues and control over park usage.

However, the aggressive enforcement policy has drawn criticism from free speech advocates and legal experts who argue that it constitutes government overreach and infringes on constitutional rights. The ongoing legal disputes have already cost the city millions of dollars and resulted in court rulings unfavorable to the municipality.

Some observers suggest that San Diego reconsider its approach, weighing the modest revenue generated by permit fees against the financial and legal costs of litigation, as well as the potential suppression of protected speech. The case highlights broader tensions between municipal regulation, public space management, and constitutional freedoms.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.