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.