Joy Buchman v. City of La Crosse

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN _________________________________________________________________________________

JOY BUCHMAN,

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 23-cv-105-wmc

CITY OF LA CROSSE,

Defendant. _________________________________________________________________________________

As noted in plaintiff's most recent letter to the court (dkt. #78), the Supreme Court's decision in Chiles v. Salazar, 146 S. Ct. 1010 (Mar. 31, 2026), appears to control the outcome of this case. In the Chiles decision, the Supreme Court decided that Colorado's conversation therapy law regulated speech in a viewpoint-discriminatory manner, and therefore, the law was subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. The Court further stated that, "[u]nder that test, it is rare that a regulation will ever be permissible." Id. at 1021. The Court also addressed standing, holding that Colorado's attempt to narrow construction of its law did not deprive the plaintiff of standing. Id. at 1019. However, the Supreme Court did not undertake a strict scrutiny analysis, leaving for the lower courts on remand to determine whether Colorado's law is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. Id. at 1021. In this case, La Crosse pressed many of the same arguments in challenging plaintiff's standing and defending its ordinance, which is nearly identical to the one that the Supreme Court rejected in Chiles. And, although the Supreme Court did not undertake a strict scrutiny analysis, it stated that the law was "presumptively unconstitutional." Id. Moreover, this court is unaware of any other court accepting the type of evidence presented by La Crosse as sufficient to overcome the presumption of unconstitutionality. See Cath. Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, & Hillsdale Ctys. v. Whitmer, 162

F.4th 686, 696 (6th Cir. 2025); Otto v. City of Boca Raton, Fla., 981 F.3d 854, 868 (11th Cir. 2020). However, La Crosse may have until July 28, 2026, to notify the court whether it agrees that the Chiles decision controls the outcome of this case or whether the city is still advancing the brief strict scrutiny argument it raised at summary judgment. After receiving La Crosse's response, the court will resolve this case.

Entered this 14th day of July, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ __________________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge