Wisconsin Administrative Code Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
1. Legal Framework and Authority
A. Hierarchy of Law (Very Important)
The Wisconsin Administrative Code does not exist on its own. The authority flows in this order:
Wisconsin Constitution
Wisconsin Statutes (primarily Chapter 36)
Wisconsin Administrative Code
Board of Regents policies
The Board of Regents derives its rule-making authority primarily from Wis. Stat. § 36.09, which empowers the Board to:
Govern the University of Wisconsin System
Adopt rules necessary to carry out statutory duties
Establish academic, personnel, and disciplinary regulations
Administrative Code provisions cannot exceed or conflict with statutes. If they do, courts will invalidate them.
2. Where the Board of Regents Appears in the Administrative Code
The Board of Regents’ rules are primarily found in:
UWS Chapters (formerly UWS, now reclassified under DHS/other numbering but still commonly cited as “UWS”)
These chapters regulate:
Student conduct
Faculty and academic staff employment
Due process procedures
Disciplinary hearings
Governance and administration
Even when numbering changes, courts still refer to them as “UW System administrative rules.”
3. Major Substantive Areas Explained
A. Student Discipline and Conduct Rules
Purpose
The Administrative Code authorizes the Board of Regents to regulate:
Nonacademic misconduct
Academic misconduct
Campus safety
Sanctions (suspension, expulsion, reprimands)
These rules must comply with constitutional due process because UW institutions are state actors.
Core Legal Principles
Students at public universities have property and liberty interests in continued enrollment
Disciplinary action requires notice and a fair hearing
The level of due process depends on the seriousness of the sanction
Key Case Law
Goss v. Lopez (applied by Wisconsin courts)
Short suspensions require minimal due process
Longer exclusions require more formal procedures
Gorman v. University of Rhode Island (frequently cited by Wisconsin courts)
Due process in university discipline does not require full judicial trials
Cross-examination is not always required unless credibility is central
Wisconsin Application
Wisconsin courts have upheld UW disciplinary rules so long as:
Written notice is provided
The student has an opportunity to respond
The decision is based on evidence in the record
Courts will intervene if procedures are arbitrary, biased, or fundamentally unfair.
B. Academic Decisions vs. Disciplinary Decisions
This distinction is critical.
Academic Decisions
Grades
Program dismissal for academic reasons
Degree requirements
Courts give extreme deference to universities.
Disciplinary Decisions
Misconduct
Behavioral violations
Courts apply greater scrutiny because constitutional rights are involved.
Key Case Law
Board of Curators v. Horowitz
Academic dismissals require less process than disciplinary dismissals
Wisconsin Courts
Will not substitute their judgment for academic experts
Will review whether the university followed its own rules
C. Faculty and Academic Staff Governance
The Administrative Code regulates:
Appointment
Tenure
Layoff
Discipline
Dismissal for cause
Due Process Protections
Tenured faculty have:
A property interest in continued employment
Rights to notice, hearing, and review
Key Case Law
Perry v. Sindermann
Even without formal tenure, repeated employment may create a property interest
Wisconsin Application
UW faculty dismissal cases often turn on whether:
The university followed its own code procedures
The decision was supported by substantial evidence
Courts are cautious not to intrude on shared governance, but will enforce procedural safeguards.
D. Rulemaking and Administrative Law Constraints
The Board of Regents is an administrative agency and must comply with:
Wisconsin Administrative Procedure Act
Proper rulemaking procedures
Legislative oversight
Judicial Review Standard
Courts review Regents’ actions for:
Authority
Procedural compliance
Reasonableness
Key Case Law
Wisconsin Realtors Ass’n v. PSC
Agencies cannot create rules that effectively make new law
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. DOR
Courts no longer defer to agency interpretations of law
Regents’ legal interpretations receive no automatic deference
This significantly limits the Board’s power when interpreting statutes.
4. Constitutional Limits on the Board of Regents
A. Free Speech
UW rules regulating speech must:
Be content-neutral (unless strict scrutiny is satisfied)
Avoid vague or overbroad language
Wisconsin courts have struck down or limited policies that:
Chill protected speech
Punish expression based on viewpoint
B. Equal Protection and Title IX
Disciplinary systems must:
Apply equally
Avoid sex-based discrimination
Provide fair procedures in sexual misconduct cases
Courts scrutinize:
Bias
Presumption of guilt
Lack of procedural balance
5. Enforcement and Judicial Remedies
If the Board of Regents violates the Administrative Code or constitutional rights, courts may:
Vacate disciplinary decisions
Order new hearings
Reinstate students or employees
Award damages (in limited circumstances)
However:
Sovereign immunity often limits monetary recovery
Injunctive and declaratory relief are more common
6. Practical Legal Takeaways
Administrative Code rules are binding law, not guidelines
Failure to follow the Code is grounds for reversal
Courts defer on academic judgment, not on legal or procedural compliance
Regents’ authority is broad but not unlimited
Post-Tetra Tech, Regents’ legal interpretations receive independent judicial review
7. Summary
The Wisconsin Administrative Code provisions governing the Board of Regents form the operational backbone of the UW System. While the Regents possess broad authority, that power is constrained by:
Wisconsin Statutes
Constitutional protections
Judicial review
Their own procedural rules
Wisconsin courts consistently enforce due process, fairness, and statutory limits, while avoiding intrusion into legitimate academic decision-making.
RELATED Blog
comments