## Facts

- Michael Joseph, a Colorado resident, attended the University of Wisconsin and was charged nonresident tuition of about $9,000 per semester.
- Wisconsin residents paid about $2,500 per semester; Minnesota residents paid near-resident rates under a Wisconsin–Minnesota tuition reciprocity agreement.
- Joseph paid roughly $27,000 in tuition but alleged he still owed about $18,500 in back tuition.
- The Board of Regents sets tuition and governs the state university system; most members are appointed by the governor with senate confirmation.
- The Board’s finances and budgeting are integrated with state processes, including submission through the Department of Administration and legislative budget control, with the State Treasurer serving as treasurer.
- Joseph sued the Board under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging (1) the resident/nonresident tuition differential violated Equal Protection and (2) the reciprocity agreement violated the Compact Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board of Regents is an “arm of the state” entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from a § 1983 damages suit in federal court.
2. If immunity did not apply, whether charging higher tuition to nonresidents violates the Equal Protection Clause.
3. If immunity did not apply, whether the Wisconsin–Minnesota tuition reciprocity agreement violates the Compact Clause.
4. Whether the appeal was so baseless as to justify sanctions against Joseph’s counsel.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal because the Board of Regents is an arm of the State of Wisconsin and is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity from § 1983 damages claims.
- The court found no applicable exception to immunity (such as waiver, abrogation, or a prospective-relief suit against individual officers).
- The court indicated that, even aside from immunity, the constitutional theories were weak: resident/nonresident tuition differentials ordinarily survive rational-basis review, and educational reciprocity agreements typically do not offend the Compact Clause.
- The court denied the Board’s motion for sanctions, concluding the appeal was not sufficiently frivolous.

## Legal Principles

- A state entity is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court when its structure, governance, and fiscal relationship show it functions as an arm of the state rather than an independent local body.
- Indicators of arm-of-the-state status include state-controlled appointments, statutory assignment of statewide governmental responsibilities, and substantial state budgetary and fiscal oversight.
- Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 damages actions against state arms absent waiver, valid congressional abrogation, or an applicable prospective-relief action against appropriate state officials.
- Differential tuition for residents and nonresidents generally satisfies rational-basis review because states may account for residents’ tax contributions supporting public universities.
- Interstate educational reciprocity arrangements generally do not violate the Compact Clause when they do not increase state power in a manner that threatens federal supremacy.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that the University of Wisconsin System’s Board of Regents is an arm of the State of Wisconsin and therefore immune under the Eleventh Amendment from Joseph’s § 1983 damages suit challenging tuition classifications and a reciprocity agreement; the court also declined to impose sanctions for pursuing the appeal.


Joseph v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 432 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005)