Tunstall v. Bergeson

Sunsirae Tunstall and a class of inmates (collectively, the inmates) (plaintiffs) filed a class-action lawsuit against Teresa Bergeson (defendant), in her official capacity as superintendent of public instruction, and other defendants regarding their right to education. The inmates were imprisoned in adult prisons operated by the state and were either not yet 21 years old or were disabled and not yet 22 years old. The inmates alleged that Washington’s educational program for inmates under the age of 21 or 22 who were incarcerated in adult prisons violated article IX of the state constitution, certain federal statutes, and Washington’s equal-protection clause, among other things. Article IX required the state to create a public school system that was general and uniform, and the state had an additional duty to provide education for all children within the state. The inmates alleged that Washington violated article IX by failing to offer them basic and special education up to the age of 21 or 22. Article IX did not define the word children. The term was commonly defined in other state laws as applying to persons under the age of 18. Additionally, under chapter 28A.193 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which was passed specifically to establish educational programs that met the unique educational and rehabilitative needs of juvenile inmates in facilities operated by the Department of Corrections (the department), only juveniles who were 17 years old or younger and possibly 18-year-olds could participate. A trial court ruled in favor of the inmates, granting summary judgment on their constitutional claim. The trial court ruled that chapter 28A.193 RCW was unconstitutional because only inmates under age 18 could participate in basic educational programs. The trial court dismissed the inmates’ federal claims. The state and the inmates appealed. The Washington Supreme Court stayed the orders of the trial court pending the result of the appeal.