Joy Buchman, the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the city of La Crosse must take the stand, and now plans to attend an evidentiary hearing on Thursday, June 1, 2023, before a decision can be reached.

On May 24, 2023, despite Buchman telling the court in a written statement that she believes that the best mental health decision for children is for them to find comfort in their own gender, and that this is based on her religious beliefs, U.S. Western District Court Judge William Conley of Wisconsin requested additional, verbal testimony from Buchman so his specific questions could be answered in an effort to better determine if Buchman is harmed by the ordinance.

In the first ever hearing of its kind in the state of Wisconsin, the questions centered on clarifying the meaning of the ordinance that was passed on September 9, 2022 that banned conversion therapy in La Crosse for minors. Buchman, the owner of Kinsman Redeemer Counseling in La Crosse, has alleged that the city of La crosse is harming her because the ordinance prevents her from exercising her First Amendment rights during her Christian based counseling sessions with children. 

This hearing was meant to decide if the city's ordinance was constitutional and if an injunction should be granted that would suspend the ordinance until it was resolved in the court. While many questions by Judge Conley were aimed at discovering proof of harm, most of the over-two-hour hearing was spent by the judge trying to pinpoint the exact action that is being outlawed and if such an action violates Buchman's First Amendment rights. The list of questions to make this determination covered looking at past landmark cases, and their application, precise wording used in the ordinance, goal-based versus outcome based therapy, discussion on whether the first amendment supercedes the way a counselor is regulated and whether regulations in a counselor's conduct refers to their speech, which is also a point of contention since speech is protected by the First Amendment. 

But perhaps the in-depth examination is unavoidable due to the complex nature of a city ordinance that tries to regulate a profession that is normally regulated at the state level. City ordinances, by law, must be precise, but as became apparent during the hearing, enforcement of this ordinance relies on subjective interpretation and discernment of intent and motivation of the counselor. At one point in the hearing, Judge Conley informed the counsel for the city of La crosse that his interpretation of the ordinance, which amounted to a rewriting of the ordinance, would stand going forward, unless they disagreed.  

Such a lack of clarity in the ordinance is exactly another reason why Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, in it's lawsuit, says the ordinance violates the vagueness clause in the Fourteenth amendment, and so fails because it does not clearly delineate the crime.

Luke Berg, of WILL, despite all the questions, maintained during the hearing that the question of harm is still easily answered because harm is presumed to have occurred if the First Amendment is violated, because there are no special exemptions from the First Amendment for professional speech.

Whatever is decided in this court, either side may appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals where it will join only three other circuit courts that have ruled on cases involving bans on conversion therapy. The Eleventh Circuit has ruled against the ban on conversion therapy, while the Ninth and Third Circuit Courts have upheld the ban on conversion therapy. However, the theory the Third District court relied upon to make its ruling has since been rejected by the Supreme Court. Currently, the Ninth Circuit Court has applied to the United States Supreme Court to have the ban on conversion therapy heard. If it is accepted, it will be heard in the next session starting this fall with a hearing happening sometime between this fall and June 2024 when the next session ends.