976 N.W.2d 584
Wis.2022Background
- In April 2018 Madison Metropolitan School District adopted a "Guidance & Policies to Support Transgender, Non-binary & Gender Expansive Students" (the Policy) directing staff to use students' affirmed names/pronouns and to maintain confidentiality, including nondisclosure to parents unless legally required or authorized by the student.
- In February 2020 a group of parents sued the District alleging the Policy violated their constitutional right to parent (Wis. Const. art. I, §1) and free exercise (art. I, §18); they sought to proceed under pseudonyms and to obtain a preliminary injunction preventing certain Policy practices.
- The circuit court found a realistic risk of harassment, allowed the plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously to the public, and ordered an amended complaint with plaintiffs' names filed under seal but available to the court and defense counsel subject to a protective order.
- Parents appealed the requirement to disclose their identities to opposing counsel and sought injunctions pending appeal; the circuit court issued a limited injunction forbidding staff concealment/lying to parents but denied other relief; the court of appeals affirmed the confidentiality ruling and denied additional appellate injunctive relief.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the court of appeals: it declined to adopt a new federal-style multifactor test or to permit total anonymity from opposing counsel, reviewed the sealing order for erroneous exercise of discretion, and declined to grant the parents’ requested injunctive relief as either procedurally improper or moot; the matter was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs may proceed fully anonymously (prevent disclosure of identities to opposing counsel) | Plaintiffs: identities irrelevant to claims; risk of harassment and leaks justify withholding identities from everyone except the court | District: attorneys need identities to investigate defenses, evaluate standing/ripeness/conflicts, and comply with ethical duties | Court: affirmed circuit court discretion to require disclosure to opposing counsel under seal; declined to adopt broader federal anonymity test |
| Standard of review for sealing/confidentiality order | Plaintiffs: urged de novo review and adoption of multifactor federal test | District: urged abuse/erroneous exercise of discretion review | Court: applied erroneous-exercise-of-discretion standard (review legal standard then defer to discretionary judgment) |
| Whether Wisconsin should adopt federal multifactor balancing test for anonymous litigation | Plaintiffs: urged adoption of federal factors (risk of harassment, sensitivity, irrelevance of identity, minor status) | District: existing Wisconsin rules and protective orders suffice; opposing counsel duties and defenses require names | Court: declined to change Wisconsin law; applied existing rule-based framework (Wis. Stat. § 801.21 and inherent judicial power) |
| Request for temporary injunction against the Policy (relief pending appeal / merits) | Plaintiffs: sought injunctions under Wis. Stat. § 808.07(2)(a) and § 813.02 to stop certain Policy practices | District: argued procedural defects, lack of demonstrated likelihood of success/irreparable harm | Court: declined to grant relief—§ 808.07(2)(a) relief would be moot after this decision; § 813.02 injunction remains pending in circuit court and appellate courts should not substitute for trial-court decision; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bilder v. Township of Delavan, 112 Wis. 2d 539 (Wis. 1983) (courts may close records when administration of justice requires and movant must show particularized need)
- State v. Schwind, 386 Wis. 2d 526 (Wis. 2019) (inherent judicial powers include those necessary for courts to function)
- Krier v. EOG Env't, Inc., 288 Wis. 2d 623 (Ct. App. 2005) (standard for reviewing sealing/confidentiality decisions and erroneous exercise of discretion)
- Werner v. A.L. Grootemaat & Sons, Inc., 80 Wis. 2d 513 (Wis. 1977) (standards and discretion for injunctions pending appeal)
- Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2016) (federal practice treating motions for anonymous litigation as discretionary)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental liberty interest is a fundamental right)