Halter v. Wis. Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n

411 Wis. 2d 191

Hayden Halter and Shawn Halter, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, Defendant-Respondent.^†

Court of Appeals

No. 2021AP1525. Submitted on briefs August 5, 2022.—Decided February 28, 2024.

2024 WI App 12

(Also reported in 4 N.W.3d 573.)

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Racine County: EUGENE A. GASIORKIEWICZ, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with instructions.

On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Stacie H. Rosenweig of Hailing and Cayo, S.C., Milwaukee.

On behalf of the defendant-respondent, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Brent W. Jacobson of Anderson O'Brien LLP, Stevens Point.

Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Lazar, JJ.

¶ 1. LAZAR, J. Hayden Halter and his father Shawn Halter¹ appeal from a judgment in favor of the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) dismissing, on the merits and with prejudice, all of the Halters' claims for declaratory judgment and common law certiorari as well as their request for a permanent injunction that would allow Halter to retain the titles and points from the 2019 WIAA state wrestling tournament following his suspension at a prior meet and reinstatement of all wins, points, and records. The Halters contend that WIAA is a state actor and is bound by its own rules and that the rules then in effect did not require Halter's penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct to be served at the next varsity meet, but rather at the "next competitive event" for which Halter was eligible. They further assert that WIAA acted arbitrarily and violated its written appeals procedures. For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Halters and reverse.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2. In early 2019, Halter was a sophomore at Waterford Union High School. Halter was a talented wrestler; he had won a state title as a freshman and hoped to win another as a sophomore. On Saturday, February 2, 2019, Halter progressed to the championship match at the Southern Lakes Conference wrestling meet at the varsity level. He defeated his opponent and won the meet, but received two unsportsmanlike conduct calls (the propriety of which are not at issue in this appeal).²

¶ 3. WIAA is an organization comprised of more than 500 member schools throughout Wisconsin whose purposes include "emphasiz[ing] interscholastic athletics as a partner with other school activities in the total educational process" and "promot[ing] uniformity of standards in interscholastic athletic competition."³ WIAA administers hundreds of interscholastic athletic programs, including the wrestling meets at issue here. Its members include "all senior high schools in Wisconsin's public school districts," as well as "statewide schools, specialty schools, and religious and independent schools." Member schools agree to abide by terms and conditions of membership.

¶ 4. WIAA is governed by a Constitution, Bylaws, Rules of Eligibility, and Sports Regulations. Student athletes and at least one parent must sign an Athletic Eligibility Information Bulletin that is kept on file with a member school. The Bulletin summarizes WIAA's Rules of Eligibility, including those related to unsportsmanlike conduct. Eligibility requirements at the relevant time were contained in two separate documents: the main Rules of Eligibility and the 2018-19 Seasonal Rules.

¶ 5. Pursuant to these rules, an athlete receiving two unsportsmanlike conduct calls in one meet is immediately ejected from that meet. In addition, both the Rules of Eligibility and Seasonal Rule 8.a for Winter 2018-19 state that "[a] student, disqualified from a contest for flagrant or unsportsmanlike conduct, is suspended from interscholastic competition for no less than the next competitive event (but not less than one complete game or meet)." Thus, after Halter's second unsportsmanlike conduct violation, he was immediately ejected from the conference meet and suspended from the "next competitive event."

¶ 6. WIAA took the position that the "next competitive event" was the Regional meet on February 9, 2019. Halter, however, sought to satisfy his suspension by registering for and then sitting out of the Badger Invitational, a junior varsity/varsity reserve meet that was scheduled several days prior to Regionals.⁴ Halter had competed at the varsity rather than junior varsity/varsity reserve level for the entirety of his high school wrestling career. Characterizing Halter's registration for the Badger Invitational as an attempt to "circumvent" its rules, WIAA communicated to Halter's coach and Waterford's athletic director that its decision on Halter's ineligibility for Regionals (affirmed by its Executive Director) was final and unappealable.

¶ 7. Two days before Regionals, the Halters filed a lawsuit against WIAA in the circuit court.⁵ Pursuant to the Rules of Eligibility, they also filed a Notice of Appeal to the WIAA Board of Control on the same date.⁶ WIAA denied the appeal approximately thirty minutes after it was filed, asserting that "[t]here is not an internal appeal to the WIAA Board afforded for this matter." WIAA asserted that "[t]he only 'appeal' available takes place at the mat during the match per NFHS wrestling rules." The Halters sought and obtained a temporary restraining order from the circuit court allowing Halter to participate in Regionals and preventing WIAA from deeming him ineligible to compete until further order. Halter went on to win Regionals and ultimately to win a second WIAA state title for his weight class.

¶ 8. After conducting an evidentiary hearing in May 2021, however, the circuit court⁷ ruled in favor of WIAA "in all respects," denying the Halters' motions for certiorari, declaratory judgment, and a permanent injunction. The court found, among other things, that WIAA's interpretation of its rules, under which Halter would have been ineligible to compete in Regionals (and therefore the other meets in the state tournament series), was "in accord with a long-standing policy of the WIAA," did not violate Halter's procedural or substantive due process rights, and that the rules at issue were "reasonable in their context, reasonably applied." This judgment had the effect of stripping Halter of his 2019 state title and eliminating all of Halter's matches, places, points, and scores from Regionals through the rest of the season.

¶ 9. The Halters appeal the judgment, seeking reinstatement of Halter's 2019 wins and state title. They argue that WIAA acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner in refusing to accept that Halter satisfied his suspension by sitting out of the February 9, 2019 junior varsity/varsity reserve meet based on its rules as written at the time,⁸ warranting certiorari, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

DISCUSSION

¶ 10. The underlying complaint is based upon, among other things, common law certiorari, the declaratory judgment act, and a request for a permanent injunction. The Halters seek relief under one or more of these grounds. In order to prevail under any, the Halters must establish that Halter has a right to certiorari review and/or declaratory relief, and with that, an accompanying equitable right to a permanent injunction. This presents an issue of first impression.

1. Judicial Review of WIAA's Rules

A. WIAA is a state actor for the purpose of this appeal.

[1]

¶ 11. The threshold question is whether WIAA's eligibility determinations under its rules (regarding eligibility, suspensions, and appeal) are subject to judicial review by virtue of it being a state actor. There is a legal distinction between general education institutions and voluntary sports associations like WIAA. "The education of children within a specified age range is compulsory, and [s]tates specify the minimum number of hours per day and the minimum number of days per year that a student must attend classes, as well as many aspects of the school curriculum." Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L., 141 S. Ct. 2038, 2051 (2021) (Alito, J., concurring); see also Wis. Const. art. X, § 3. There is no dispute that public schools are state actors, and as such, are subject to judicial review of their officials' decisions under certain circumstances. See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 336 (1985). Voluntary sports associations, however, are not necessarily always state actors, but they may be.

¶ 12. WIAA's status as a state actor was not originally an issue in this case: As it did in WIAA v. Gannett Co., Inc., 658 F.3d 614, 616 (7th Cir. 2011), WIAA chose not to challenge the Halters' assertion that it is a state actor for the purposes of this case. But in response to this court's request for supplemental briefing on the issue, WIAA asserted that it is not a state actor. We conclude that under Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Schools Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288 (2001), WIAA is, in fact, a state actor.

[2]

¶ 13. In Brentwood Academy, the United States Supreme Court set forth the appropriate fact-bound inquiry to determine whether a statewide voluntary association created to regulate interscholastic athletic competition "may be regarded as engaging in state action when it enforces a rule." Id. at 290. Courts are to determine if the private character of the association has been "overborne by the pervasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials in its composition and workings, and there is no substantial reason to claim unfairness in applying constitutional standards to it." Id. at 298.

¶ 14. The sports association at issue in Brentwood Academy, TSSAA, was a single-state association consisting of almost all of the public schools in Tennessee (290) and some (55) private schools. Id. at 291. Thus, while the association labeled itself as "voluntary," it was actually the only game in town. See id. at 293. TSSAA was governed by a Board of Control consisting almost entirely of public school employees. Id. at 300. The majority of its revenue was from tournament ticket sales. Id...