## Facts

- Arizona enacted two state-funded K–12 scholarship programs for (1) students with disabilities and (2) foster children (“displaced pupils”).
- The disabilities program offered eligible students the option to attend a public school of choice or receive scholarship funds to attend a “qualified school” chosen by the parent; the amount equaled the state aid the student would have generated in a public district.
- The displaced pupils program provided scholarships capped at the lesser of $5,000 or tuition and fees, and limited participation to 500 children.
- Under both programs, the State issued warrants payable to parents, who were required to restrictively endorse them to the selected private school for tuition and fees.
- “Qualified” private schools were subject to limited nondiscrimination requirements but were not required to change their creed, practices, or curriculum.
- The programs permitted scholarship use at private schools, including religious schools.
- Taxpayers and education and civil-liberties organizations sued the Superintendent of Public Instruction, seeking to enjoin the programs as unconstitutional.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the State, and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the programs violate the Arizona Constitution’s Aid Clause, art. IX, § 10, by appropriating public money “in aid of” private or sectarian schools.
2. Whether the programs violate the Arizona Constitution’s Religion Clause, art. II, § 12, by appropriating public money for religious worship, exercise, instruction, or support of a religious establishment.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision, reversed the trial court, and remanded with instructions to enjoin implementation of both programs.
- The court held both programs unconstitutional under the Aid Clause, art. IX, § 10.
- Having resolved the case under the Aid Clause, the court declined to decide the Religion Clause challenge.

## Legal Principles

- Article IX, § 10 prohibits legislative appropriations of public money “in aid of” any private or sectarian school.
- An appropriation violates the Aid Clause when public funds are earmarked and used to pay private-school tuition, even if the payment is routed through parents and conditioned on parental choice.
- The required endorsement mechanism did not alter the programs’ object and effect: public funds flowed to private schools as tuition payments, constituting prohibited aid.
- Tax-credit programs may be treated differently from direct appropriations because tax credits can involve private donations and no public funds entering state control; direct vouchers funded from the treasury fall on the prohibited side of the constitutional line.

## Conclusion

The court held that Arizona’s voucher-style scholarship programs for disabled and foster children amounted to unconstitutional appropriations of public money in aid of private and sectarian schools under art. IX, § 10, and it ordered the programs enjoined without reaching the separate Religion Clause claim.


Cain v. Horne, 220 Ariz. 77, 202 P.3d 1178 (Ariz. 2009)