The National Implications of Cain v. Horne

Abstract

This commentary addresses the Arizona Supreme Court's legal reasoning in Cain v. Horne , which struck down two voucher programs for special needs children pursuant to one of Arizona's Blaine Amendments and explains that the court both failed to apply a straightforward textual analysis and ignored the analytical framework its prior precedents had properly established. The article then places the decision in a national context by discussing the implications for future school choice programs in states with similar constitutional provisions and demonstrates why Cain is not persuasive legal authority.