San Diego yoga teacher’s park-class dispute remains active after federal free-speech ruling

Current assessment: The available court record supports the conclusion that San Diego yoga instructor Steven Hubbard, known as “NamaSteve,” remains in an active legal dispute with the City of San Diego over enforcement affecting public yoga classes. The dispute is not simply a challenge to a general park rule: the Ninth Circuit held in June 2025 that, on the record before it, Hubbard and fellow instructor Amy Baack were likely to prevail on an as-applied First Amendment claim because teaching yoga is protected speech and the city’s restriction was content-based. That ruling led to a preliminary injunction protecting those plaintiffs from enforcement of a specified code provision in San Diego shoreline parks while the case proceeds. ([cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/04/24-4613.pdf))

Reported facts: Hubbard and Baack offer free yoga classes in San Diego shoreline parks and accept, but do not require, donations, according to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion. The court described a 2024 city ordinance that defined teaching yoga as non-expressive activity and restricted instruction without city permission. The appellate panel reversed a lower court’s denial of preliminary relief, finding that yoga instruction communicates information about yoga philosophy and practice through spoken instruction and expressive movement. ([cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/04/24-4613.pdf))

The federal district court implemented that direction on June 13, 2025. Its order enjoined the city and those acting with it, during the pending case, from using San Diego Municipal Code section 63.0102 to prohibit Hubbard and Baack from teaching yoga classes or lecturing in San Diego shoreline parks. This was preliminary relief, not a final judgment resolving every challenge to the ordinance. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_24-cv-00972/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_24-cv-00972-0.pdf))

Later court records indicate that the conflict continued. In a February 2, 2026 order addressing claims against individual park-ranger defendants, the district court stated that the plaintiffs alleged citations had been issued to Hubbard for teaching yoga and lecturing in a park, including an allegation involving a YouTube yoga class streamed from his home. The order granted part and denied part of the defendants’ motion to dismiss; the cited allegations remain allegations rather than adjudicated findings of misconduct. ([courthousenews.com](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/hubbard-SD-rangers-ruling.pdf))

A separate case brought by Hubbard and Baack against the city and Mayor Todd Gloria was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 15, 2026. The available docket identifies it as a civil-rights case and records its subsequent transfer under the court’s low-number rule because of its relationship to the earlier litigation. The accessible docket does not provide a later merits ruling. ([dockets.justia.com](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/casdce/3%3A2026cv04084/863181))

Supporting evidence: The Ninth Circuit’s published opinion is the strongest available source because it sets out the governing preliminary legal findings. It found the city’s prohibition, as applied to Hubbard and Baack, content-based and concluded that the city had not shown a plausible connection between their teaching and threats to public safety or enjoyment of shoreline parks. The court also stressed a key limitation: the factual record was underdeveloped on the plaintiffs’ broader facial challenge, so it did not decide whether the ordinance was invalid in every application. ([cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/04/24-4613.pdf))

Established local reporting in July 2026 also described Hubbard as having filed another lawsuit after citations connected with public yoga teaching. That reporting attributed the newer claims and details of the citations to Hubbard’s attorney and noted that the City Attorney’s Office declined comment because litigation was pending. It supports the assessment that the controversy had continued, but the specific claims in the complaint still require treatment as allegations. ([latimes.com](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-07-02/battle-over-free-public-yoga-classes-pits-namasteve-against-socal-city))

Limitations and competing evidence: The city has previously maintained that its rules concern permits and commercial or service activity rather than yoga as a subject alone, and that it has interests in the safety and orderly use of parks and beaches. The Ninth Circuit rejected that justification on the preliminary, as-applied record before it; it did not enter a final ruling that prevents San Diego from regulating all organized activity in public parks through content-neutral rules. ([cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/04/24-4613.pdf))

The supplied Washington Post page characterizes the matter as a protracted legal battle, but it is an opinion-page item and its accessible page did not provide sufficient text to independently verify its particular factual framing. The article should therefore rest on the court orders and docket information, rather than treating the opinion headline as independent proof of current legal status. ([washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/09/30/san-diego-yoga-teacher-fights-protracted-legal-battle-against-city/))

Current conclusion: A cautious reading of the available record is that Hubbard’s dispute with San Diego remains legally active and has already produced significant preliminary First Amendment relief for him and Baack. The evidence supports describing a continuing legal battle over park-based yoga instruction and enforcement. It does not establish that all San Diego restrictions on outdoor yoga are permanently invalid, that every alleged citation was unlawful, or that Hubbard has prevailed on final judgment. A docket entry resolving either pending case, a revised city enforcement policy, or an appellate ruling altering the injunction would materially change this assessment.