Board of Regents - UW System v. Jeffrey S. Decker
850 N.W.2d 112
Wis.2014Background
- Jeffrey Decker, a suspended former UW–Stevens Point student, repeatedly entered UW property after suspension, disrupted meetings, was arrested multiple times, and threatened/challenged university officials during a confrontation with the Chancellor.
- The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents sought a harassment injunction under Wis. Stat. § 813.125; the circuit court granted an injunction (including a firearm possession prohibition) effective through 2015.
- The court found Decker knowingly trespassed despite suspension, disrupted meetings, had threatened officials, and attempted to purchase a handgun shortly after being served with restraining-order papers.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding Decker’s conduct served a legitimate purpose (protected protest) and therefore could not be enjoined under the harassment statute.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review, held § 813.125 may protect institutions, upheld the injunction as supported by evidence (but agreed it was overbroad), and remanded to narrow and clarify the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Board of Regents) | Defendant's Argument (Decker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wis. Stat. § 813.125 can protect an institution | Statutory definition of “person” (Wis. Stat. § 990.01(26)) includes bodies politic/corporate; Board is a body corporate and may be protected | Statute contemplates harassment of natural persons; institutions cannot experience the kinds of physical/mental harassment described | Court: § 813.125 can protect institutions; the general statutory definition of “person” applies and Board of Regents qualifies |
| Whether Decker’s conduct constituted harassment under § 813.125(1)(b) (and lacked a legitimate purpose) | Decker knowingly trespassed to disrupt and intimidate; violation of suspension made his acts unlawful and not legitimately purposed | His actions were political protest against segregated fees, a legitimate, protected purpose under the First Amendment | Court: Evidence supported circuit court finding Decker engaged in harassment with intent to harass/intimidate and that it served no legitimate purpose; protest label does not shield intentionally harassing conduct |
| Whether the injunction’s scope and terms were sufficiently specific and not overbroad | Needed protection across UW properties and representatives; agreed the injunction as written was overbroad and required refinement | Injunction as written was vague and impermissibly broad (would bar contact with thousands; impinge on First Amendment and daily activities) | Court: Agreed injunction was overbroad/vague; remanded for the circuit court to narrow and clarify protected parties, forbidden conduct, and covered premises |
| Whether firearm restriction was justified and constitutional | Decker’s threatening behavior, the note, prior conduct, and attempted handgun purchase supported clear-and-convincing finding of public-safety risk | Restriction burdened Second Amendment rights and lacked sufficient proof | Court: Upheld circuit court’s finding that clear-and-convincing evidence supported temporary firearm prohibition during the injunction period |
Key Cases Cited
- Bachowski v. Salamone, 139 Wis.2d 397 (1987) (establishes specificity and scope rules for harassment injunctions and that harassing intent negates legitimate purpose)
- Village of Tigerton v. Minniecheske, 211 Wis.2d 777 (Ct. App. 1997) (interpreted harassment statute to apply to municipal corporations)
- Welytok v. Ziolkowski, 312 Wis.2d 435 (Ct. App. 2008) (standard of review for harassment injunctions and deference to circuit court’s factual findings)
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis.2d 633 (2004) (canons of statutory interpretation, including reading statutes in context)
- Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (First Amendment protections on public university campuses)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (forum analysis for speech restrictions: traditional/designated/nonpublic forum)
- Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (scope and tailoring of injunctions implicating First Amendment interests)