The National Implications of Cain v. Horne
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.
Related Cases

Educational Choice | Publicly Funded Scholarships
Alaska School Choice
As a sparsely populated state, Alaska faces unique challenges in ensuring that all children can receive an education. To address this concern, the state created “correspondence programs,” in which a student’s public school used the…

Educational Choice | Publicly Funded Scholarships
New Hampshire School Choice
New Hampshire families are poised to defend the state’s Education Freedom Accounts (EFA) from a legal challenge.

Educational Choice | Publicly Funded Scholarships
West Virginia School Choice
West Virginia parents intervene to defend one of the nation's best school choice programs to help obtain the education that will best meet the needs of their children.