Wisconsin Supreme Court Punts on Issue of Whether Decisions of WIAA are Reviewable in Court 

A 2019 state wrestling championship title has finally been decided, nearly six years after the final match. The Wisconsin Supreme Court may have resolved the dispute between the former state champion and the WIAA, but the Court’s decision leaves the future of cases against the WIAA in limbo.  

What is the WIAA?

The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) may be a familiar term to many Wisconsinites with students who participate in high school sports, but people may not be aware of the private nature of the WIAA. The WIAA is a “voluntary, non-profit organization that ‘sets and enforces rules and regulations’ for interscholastic athletics in Wisconsin.”[1] All public senior high schools in Wisconsin are members. The WIAA has by-laws, a constitution, rules for eligibility, and season regulations, and member schools agree to abide by those rules and regulations by joining the WIAA. The WIAA is the sole arbiter of its rules and regulations.  

How Did the Case Come About?

In early 2019, sophomore Hayden Halter was on track to compete and potentially win a second state title in wrestling. Prior to attending the regional competition (a required step to the state championship), Halter attended a varsity conference meet where he received two unsportsmanlike conduct calls. Per WIAA regulations, he was expected to sit out at the next event because of his conduct violations. The next event for Halter, who had only competed at varsity level during his freshman and sophomore years, was going to be the regional conference (and, if he did not compete at the regional conference, he would have no chance to wrestle at the sectional meet or the state championship). Halter tried to sign up for a junior varsity match before the regional conference to attempt to sit his suspension there rather than at regionals, but the WIAA refused to let Halter sit his suspension at the junior varsity tournament. Halter and his father filed for an injunction in circuit court regarding the WIAA’s interpretation of how Halter could serve his suspension, and the circuit court granted the injunction. Halter was permitted to wrestle in the regional conference and ultimately advanced to the state championship where he won another state wrestling championship in his weight class.  

Approximately two years after Halter’s state championship win, the circuit court held a full trial on Halter’s claims and ultimately found for the WIAA. At that point, Halter’s title had been stripped from him. He and his father appealed the case to the Court of Appeals which, in early 2024, issued a decision reversing the circuit court’s decision and reinstated Halter’s state championship title. The WIAA then filed a petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which took up the case in late 2024.  

What’s the Legal Issue?

The question people often ask when hearing about cases in the news is, “so what are they suing for?” And, in this case, it may not be readily apparent for those not familiar with the law.  

At the circuit court level, Halter and his father filed a claim for declaratory judgment and for a writ of certiorari, and sought a permanent injunction that would allow Halter to retain his titles and wins. A claim for declaratory judgment askes for a court to “declare rights, status, and other legal relations” of a party.1 A claim for a writ of certiorari asks a court to review a decision of a municipality, administrative agency, certain governmental boards (like Zoning Boards of Appeals), and quasi-judicial tribunals, and evaluate whether the entity “1. Kept within its jurisdiction; 2. Proceeded on a correct theory of law; 3. Acted in an arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable manner that represented its will and not its judgment; and 4. Might reasonably make the order or determination in question based on evidence.”2 Here, Halter was asking the circuit court to declare his rights and review the WIAA’s decision not to let Halter serve his suspension at the junior varsity conference tournament and determine whether it was arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable.  

The big question for many lawyers watching the case was whether or not decisions of the WIAA were subject to certiorari review because the WIAA was a private entity. At the circuit court level, the WIAA did not argue that it was not subject to certiorari review. However, as the case advanced through the Court of Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court, the issue became more apparent. The Court of Appeals concluded that the WIAA was a “state actor” whose conduct was subject to judicial review under certiorari.  

When the WIAA petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear the case, it presented five issues for review: (1) Is the WIAA a state actor? (2) Are the Halters entitled to judicial review of the WIAA’s decision to suspend Hayden Halter from the 2019 varsity wrestling regional event and to deny him an internal appeal to the body’s Board of Control? (3) Are the Halters entitled to certiorari relief? (4) Are the Halters entitled to declaratory relief reinstating Hayden Halter’s 2019 state title and points? (5) Are the Halters entitled to a permanent injunction? 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the petition for review, the parties briefed the issues, and the Court heard oral argument. On April 8, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision that overturned the Court of Appeals, but not for the reasons many people expected. 

Rather than focusing on whether decisions of the WIAA were reviewable by courts, the Wisconsin Supreme Court punted the issue and assumed the WIAA’s decisions were reviewable for purposes of this case, reviewed the facts, applied the facts to well-established law, and determined that the WIAA’s decision was reasonable regarding the suspension and the Halters were not entitled to the permanent injunction.  

The decision was curious because cases accepted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court are few and far between; as such, the Wisconsin Supreme Court only grants petitions “when special and important reasons are presented” which may include:  

1.  A real and significant question of federal or state constitutional law is presented.  
2. The petition for review demonstrates a need for the supreme court to consider establishing, implementing or changing a policy within its authority.  
3. A decision by the supreme court will help develop, clarify or harmonize the law, and  
   1. The case calls for the application of a new doctrine rather than merely the application of well-settled principles to the factual situation; or  
   2. The question presented is a novel one, the resolution of which will have statewide impact; or 
   3. The question presented is not factual in nature but rather is a question of law of the type that is likely to recur unless resolved by the supreme court. 
4. The court of appeals’ decision is in conflict with controlling opinions of the United States Supreme Court or the supreme court or other court of appeals’ decisions.  
5. The court of appeals’ decision is in accord with opinions of the supreme court or the court of appeals but due to the passage of time or changing circumstances, such opinions are ripe for reexamination. 

Had the Wisconsin Supreme Court actually addressed the issue of whether the WIAA’s decisions were reviewable through certiorari actions, the case would have addressed a novel issue that would have had statewide impact. The decision, as written, however, did not address any issues of statewide importance nor resolve any conflicts of law. Instead, the Wisconsin Supreme Court elected to act in an error-correcting capacity and apply the facts to well-settled law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has, in prior decisions, noted that it is not an error-correcting court – it is a law-developing court. Despite that, the Wisconsin Supreme Court pushed aside an opportunity to develop law that could impact hundreds of member schools and thousands of athletes and left the issue – whether the WIAA’s decisions were subject to court review – for another day.  

[1] Hayden Halter v. Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2025 WI 10, ¶ 5