The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of a state champion wrestler

High school athlete Hayden Halter was ejected from a varsity wrestling meet for unsportsmanlike conduct. The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) has a rule that requires an athlete who has been disqualified from an event for unsportsmanlike conduct to serve a suspension “at the next competitive event.” The next varsity wrestling match was regionals of the WIAA State Tournament—the necessary next step in Halter’s quest to win a state title, as he had the year before. Although he had wrestled exclusively at the varsity level in his high school career, Halter tried to sign up for a junior varsity event before regionals and serve his suspension there. The WIAA did not agree that this would satisfy his suspension. Halter and his father then sought and obtained a temporary restraining order in circuit court, participated in regionals, and eventually won the state championship again. The litigation over his eligibility, however, continued. The circuit court had further hearings and ruled in favor of the WIAA, which the court of appeals then reversed.

This case comes before us as a writ of certiorari, a procedure generally reserved for review of the decisions of lower tribunals. Under certiorari, judicial review is limited. One ground upon which a decision may be challenged is whether the decision was within reason or was arbitrary. Here, the Halters contend the WIAA arbitrarily and unreasonably interpreted and applied its suspension and appeals rules.

We need not decide, nor is it clear, whether the WIAA is the type of organization, and these are the types of decisions, that can be reviewed under certiorari. We conclude that even if we assume this challenge is reviewable via certiorari, the Halters still cannot succeed. The record is clear that the WIAA acted reasonably in the interpretation and application of its rules. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals.

The conduct 

One of Waterford’s wrestlers was sophomore Hayden Halter, who had won the state championship for his weight class as a freshman while wrestling for Burlington High School. Halter was on track to return to the State Tournament leading up to the conference meet on February 2. At the end of the final match, Halter received an unsportsmanlike conduct call for cursing at an official. Then, after winning the match, he received a second unsportsmanlike conduct call for flexing at the opposing crowd. The officials reviewed and upheld the second unsportsmanlike call and ejected Halter from the match. The official who made the calls reported it to the WIAA.

Two days later, the WIAA’s Labecki emailed Waterford Athletic Director Stobber. He included the official’s report, along with references to the WIAA rules, including Winter Season Regulation 8(a). Labecki reminded Stobber that Halter “must miss the next event on [the] schedule for having been ejected.” The next varsity-level event was the regionals round of the State Tournament.

The consequence would have been to end the student’s quest to repeat as state champion but a judge’s decision permitted him to compete and win.

He was later stripped of that title.

Review of penalty

The evidence in the record overwhelmingly shows WIAA’s reading is, at the very least, reasonable, and that its application to Hayden Halter was consistent with the prevailing understanding, practice, and communications about the Rule prior to the event. Accordingly, the Halters’ Rule 8(a) certiorari claim fails.

ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J., with whom REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joins, dissenting.

The majority decides this case in a manner that does not meaningfully develop the law or answer questions that have statewide importance. Instead, the majority engages in routine error correction. Had this court answered the questions raised by the petition for review, this case would develop the law and resolve issues of statewide importance, potentially even national importance. But the majority walks a different path, one that develops no law and answers questions of importance only to the parties directly before us. Because the majority takes this route, I would dismiss this case as improvidently granted. Accordingly, I dissent.

A report with video from Fox 6. (Mike Frisch)