WIAA Suspension of Wisconsin Wrestler Upheld by State Supreme Court

State High Court Rules Against Wrestler in First Amendment Case

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) in a case involving a student athlete's suspension and claims of constitutional rights violations.

In a 5-2 decision issued Tuesday, the court upheld the WIAA’s authority to suspend former Waterford Union High School wrestler Hayden Halter for unsportsmanlike conduct during a February 2019 match. The ruling reverses a lower appeals court decision that found the organization acted unfairly and raised questions about whether the WIAA could be considered a “state actor” subject to constitutional standards.

Halter, who won a state wrestling championship as a freshman, was suspended after he cursed at an official and flexed toward the opposing crowd following a match. The WIAA issued two unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, triggering an automatic one-week suspension that made him ineligible to compete in a critical regional qualifying event.

Halter and his coaches tried to have him serve the suspension during a junior varsity match instead, but the WIAA ruled the penalty had to apply to the next varsity event. Halter and his father then obtained a court order allowing him to compete, and he went on to win the 2019 state title in his weight class. The victory was later vacated by a circuit court, reinstated by an appeals court, and ultimately reversed by the state Supreme Court.

Majority Opinion Rejects Broader Constitutional Review

Writing for the majority, Justice Brian Hagedorn said the WIAA “acted reasonably” and correctly applied its rules. He emphasized that the suspension rule would be ineffective if athletes could serve penalties during events they never intended to join.

“If athletes could satisfy their suspensions by sitting out events they had no intention of participating in, the rule would be easily skirted, and poor conduct would go unpunished,” Hagedorn wrote.

While the appeals court had found the WIAA was acting as a “state actor,” Hagedorn said that issue did not need to be addressed because Halter did not raise any constitutional claims before the Supreme Court.

Dissent Criticizes Limited Scope

Chief Justice Annette Ziegler dissented, joined by Justice Rebecca Bradley. Ziegler argued the court should have addressed the state actor question and broader constitutional implications.

“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,” Ziegler wrote.

WIAA and Legal Reactions

WIAA Executive Director Stephanie Hauser said the ruling reinforces the organization’s private status and its ability to uniformly enforce policies that promote fairness in competition.

Halter’s attorney, Stacie Rosenzweig, expressed disappointment with the decision but said she respects it. She acknowledged that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is legally possible but uncertain.

“I do think this is the end of the line,” Rosenzweig said.