Represented by Pacifica, the State of Washington successfully defended against a legal challenge to an emergency proclamation temporarily closing K-12 schools to in-person learning during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the spring of 2020, every public school district in the nation temporarily closed its doors and shifted to remote learning to stem the spread of COVID-19—the vast majority due to similar emergency public health orders. In this putative class-action lawsuit, the plaintiff was a Mercer Island parent who argued then-Governor Jay Inslee’s proclamation was unlawful. The parent sought compensation from the State for the time she spent assisting her child with remote learning.
The King County Superior Court dismissed the suit, and the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court then denied the plaintiff’s petition for review.
The parent’s lawsuit raised various legal theories, each of which the courts rejected as a matter of law. First, she alleged that Governor Inslee’s proclamation violated Article IX, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution, which requires the State to fund basic education. Second, she alleged that the proclamation violated the Takings Clauses of the state and federal constitutions, which prohibit the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. Third, the parent claimed that her efforts to support her child’s education effectively made her a state employee, which meant she was owed compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and the Washington Wage Rebate Act. Finally, the parent alleged that the State committed the tort of unjust enrichment.
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit in its entirety. The parent failed to demonstrate that the school closure order resulted in the taking of any property, or that supervising her child’s remote learning transformed her into a state employee. The Article IX, Section 1 claim failed because it was moot—the proclamation having been terminated years ago—and because the state constitution does not create a claim for damages absent augmentative legislation. Finally, the parent’s unjust enrichment claim failed because her efforts to support her child’s education conferred a benefit on her child, not on the State. “Supervising one’s own children is a hallmark of parenthood,” the appeals court wrote. “No parent would expect to be paid for those responsibilities.” On July 1, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court declined to review the case.
Pacifica attorneys Zach Pekelis and Meha Goyal represented the State.
The win continues Pacifica’s track record of success in defending state and local governments against legal challenges to emergency public health measures adopted to save lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. In over 50 such cases, no challenger has won any form of relief against Pacifica’s clients.
A copy of the Court of Appeals’ decision in Arreola-Martinez v. State, No. 87438-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2026), is here.
