April 9, 2025 – The Wisconsin Supreme Court became the ultimate referee Tuesday in deciding 5-2 in Halter v. Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA), 2025 WI 10 that the WIAA acted reasonably in suspending high school wrestler Hayden Halter for unsportsmanlike conduct.

However, four justices didn’t think the case fit the supreme court’s docket. Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz, joined by Justice Jill J. Karofsky, concurred with the majority but concluded that the WIAA, a private, contractual organization, was not suitable for the certiorari review conducted here.

Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler, joined by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, said that the majority decision doesn’t add meaningfully to Wisconsin law. They would have dismissed the case as improvidently granted.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Waterford High School sophomore Hayden Halter, who in 2018 had won the state wrestling championship in his weight class, was ejected from the last varsity match before 2019 regionals for two acts deemed unsportsmanlike conduct.

He cursed at an official, and after winning the match, “flex[ed] at the opposing crowd.”

WIAA Rule 8(a) required suspension from at least the next competition for “[a] student, disqualified from a contest for … unsportsmanlike conduct.” The next varsity competition was the gateway to the state tournament.

Halter’s coaches tried to enter Halter in a junior varsity event to serve his one-event suspension, but Halter had wrestled exclusively in varsity meets.

WIAA guidance for Rule 8(a) provides examples for interpreting the rule. One hypothetical asks when a junior varsity player may serve a suspension, at the next varsity game or the subsequent junior varsity game. The proper game for serving the suspension is one in which he or she normally would play, the later junior varsity game.

The second example has a player ejected from a varsity game, but a junior varsity game is a few days later, before the next varsity game. “The suspension must be served at the next varsity contest. … A suspension received at a higher level cannot be satisfied by missing a lower-level contest.”

Consistent with this guidance, Halter couldn’t serve his suspension at the junior varsity match.

Halter and his father sought appeal from the WIAA, but “the only appeal available ‘takes place at the mat.’”

Father and son then sought injunctive relief in Racine County Circuit Court to allow Halter to wrestle in the regional varsity tournament, which the court granted.

Halter wrestled through the tournament and became, again, state champion. Reversal of the circuit court’s injunction means Halter loses his title.

Two years after that championship, the case continued to trial. The circuit court found in favor of the WIAA. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court.

Reasonableness

The principal claim on appeal requested the supreme court review the WIAA’s decision by a writ of certiorari, the means of appealing decisions of municipalities, administrative agencies, and quasi-judicial tribunals.

“Thus, the relevant question would appear to be whether the WIAA is the type of organization whose decisions are subject to common law certiorari review,” explained Justice Brian Hagedorn in the majority opinion joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Frank Dallet, Karofsky, and Protasiewicz.

But, the “WIAA expressly declined to challenge whether it was subject to certiorari review in circuit court,” Hagedorn explained.

The majority proceeded with the remaining claim, “assum[ing] without deciding” whether “certiorari review is proper for this case.”

Of the four means of relief by certiorari review, this case involved whether the WIAA “act[ed] arbitrarily or unreasonably.” That inquiry required using WIAA Rule 8(a) and the WIAA Appeal Rule, and the record of WIAA’s decision – a collection of emails, reports, and guidance.

The Halters argued the WIAA unreasonably enforced its Rule 8(a) by preventing Halter from serving his time at the next match he was eligible to participate in, a junior varsity competition.

Not only does WIAA’s interpretation toward Halter fulfill a disciplinary goal, the majority said, but WIAA’s rule interpretation stayed true to two guidance examples that resembled Halter’s case.

This interpretation remained consistent among the WIAA as shown by the responses in the emails with coaches and WIAA officials, the majority said.

“Additionally, before Halter even set foot on the mat at the conference championship,” the responsible WIAA official “sent an email to all athletic directors, including Waterford’s [coach], marked, ‘Important Note to Coaches!’” that explained ejection would render a wrestler “ineligible for regional competition the following week.”

This record demonstrated that the WIAA acted reasonably in deciding Halter, after suspension, was ineligible for the regional competition, the majority concluded.

The Halters pointed out that the WIAA later changed the rule’s language to eliminate an “ambiguous” rule, but the majority said the Halters failed to show the rule was ambiguous.

The WIAA has an appeal process that varies whether the issue involved an eligibility rule or a sport-specific season regulation. Rule 8(a) is a season regulation that is unappealable through the WIAA process, the majority explained.

The WIAA sets that limit because it could not handle “the large number of appeals that would arise during a sport season.” Not only did the majority conclude this explanation reasonable, it also noted that “[t]he WIAA did not spring this on Halter, nor apply it to him uniquely.” The structure “provid[ed] a knowable and predictable framework.”

In conclusion, the majority held that WIAA’s reasonable interpretation denied Halter recourse against the suspension.

Private Organization

Although Protasiewicz and Karofsky agreed with the majority’s conclusion, Protasiewicz argued that the WIAA, as a private, contractual body was not the municipal or quasi-judicial bodies reviewed by certiorari.

“The Halters do not argue about the official’s calls in this court,” Justice Protasiewicz began,” but they did in the circuit court. … At the risk of stating the obvious, those in-contest decisions should not be subject to judicial review.”

“If we allow review of in-contest calls,” Justice Protasiewicz said, “we risk embarking on a slippery slope toward emergency hearings every time there is a question of whether a three-point shooter’s toe was on the line or a pass interference flag should have been thrown.”

“The WIAA is not the type of organization subject to certiorari review,” the concurrence explained. It’s a “private organization and it is governed by contract.” It’s not created by statute, and “we have no evidence that the WIAA receives any state funding.”

As a private entity, the WIAA governs by contract. It’s not a quasi-judicial tribunal – characterized by “act[ing] under a deliberative, adjudicative process” – as shown in this case, in which the WIAA “record” is principally “a single email exchange.”

The concurrence “question[ed]” whether this case “is a wise use of judicial resources.”

Improvidently Granted

Chief Justice Ziegler’s dissent, joined by Justice R.G. Bradley, stated this case wasn’t a good use of the supreme court’s resources.

“The majority decides this case in a manner that does not meaningfully develop the law or answer questions that have statewide importance,” the dissent explained. Instead, it’s mere “routine error correction” that “answers questions of importance only to the parties directly before us.”

“I would dismiss this case as improvidently granted,” Chief Justice Ziegler said.

Ziegler noted that view may have been different if the majority decided the promised issues of declaratory relief, ability to review a voluntary organization’s rules for arbitrariness, whether the WIAA was a state actor, and whether certiorari applies to the WIAA.

The supreme court may dismiss a case as improvidently granted “when the issues for which the court took the case are not squarely presented, or when deciding the case will not ultimately result in law development,” the dissent explained.

That is the result here, based on the majority opinion, the dissent concluded.