A legal battle is intensifying between a yoga instructor known as "NamaSteve" and the City of San Diego over the city's ordinance restricting public yoga classes. Steve Hubbard has filed a third lawsuit, alleging the city has violated his rights by citing him for teaching free public yoga sessions, while the city is simultaneously seeking extensive data on Hubbard and his associates through numerous subpoenas in a separate civil case.
Bryan Pease, Hubbard's attorney, stated that free speech is fundamental to democracy and that restricting activities as simple as teaching yoga in public parks sets a dangerous precedent. The San Diego City Attorney's office declined to comment on the pending litigation. The core of the dispute lies in a sidewalk vending ordinance adopted by San Diego in 2024, which prohibited yoga classes of four or more people at shoreline beaches and parks without city permission. A federal appeals court previously deemed this prohibition unconstitutional.
Hubbard and another instructor, Amy Baack, initially sued San Diego in federal court in June 2024, asserting that the ordinance infringed upon their First Amendment rights. Key provisions included bans on providing services without a permit, with yoga cited as an example, and prohibitions on delivering lectures in public parks without city authorization. In January 2025, a federal judge ruled that this section of the ordinance excessively burdened free speech by forbidding lectures in any San Diego public park or beach.
Despite the judicial ruling, park rangers continued to issue citations to Hubbard under the ordinance. The most recent lawsuit alleges that Hubbard received two misdemeanor citations in May 2025, followed by a third citation referencing a different section of the ordinance. Notably, one citation was reportedly issued for teaching yoga from his backyard and live-streaming it on YouTube, with park rangers responding to his home and issuing the citation in his driveway, which Pease believes was an act of targeted harassment.
The city has conceded in court that the ordinance does not outlaw instruction in other subjects like Tai Chi or Shakespeare, despite restricting yoga instruction. Pease argued that laws singling out speech based on its content, such as yoga, must serve a substantial government interest and be narrowly tailored, asserting the city has failed to articulate such an interest. The city's defense contends the ordinance requires permits for commercial activity or lectures, not necessarily for free instruction, though Pease maintains the wording prohibits free yoga teaching.
The city has also argued that teaching yoga is not protected by the First Amendment. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise in June of last year, finding that Hubbard and Baack were likely to succeed in their First Amendment claim and granting a preliminary injunction against enforcing the ordinance. Meanwhile, in April, a Superior Court dismissed three citations issued to Hubbard in May 2025 due to the prosecution's failure to appear, and Hubbard is now seeking damages for those citations. In a separate state court case filed in January of last year, the city issued 22 subpoenas for financial and social media data concerning Hubbard and Baack and their associates, who accept donations. Pease has filed a motion to quash these subpoenas, calling the requests "extremely invasive" and indicative of severe civil liberties infringements, with a hearing scheduled for July 17.
