The Arizona Supreme Court announced that today it will decide whether two school tuition-voucher programs for disabled and foster children should be allowed to continue.

In December, the court heard oral arguments that resulted from an appeal filed by supporters of the voucher programs, which allow parents to select educational opportunities for their children outside the traditional public school system.

Attorneys for the Institute for Justice, which is representing several families that use the vouchers, and the Arizona Department of Revenue are seeking to overturn an appellate court ruling in May that found the vouchers violated constitutional prohibitions against distributing public funds to religious establishments and the granting of state aid or the levying of taxes to benefit churches, private schools and public-service corporations.

In December, Institute for Justice attorney Tim Keller argued that nothing in the Arizona Constitution prevents the state from contracting with private schools. He also urged justices to rule consistently with 1967 case law established in Community Council v. Jordan, a case in which the court upheld the granting of state aid to the Salvation Army in order to recoup costs incurred while caring for the poor.

The opinion established the "true beneficiary test" and found that the poor, and not the Salvation Army, benefited from the government aid, said Keller.

"What's going on here is that parents are being allowed to buy educational services for children," Keller said. "It's not aid to an institution. It's aid to an individual."

The defense of the Arizona Court of Appeals' ruling was led by attorney Don Peters, who represented the Arizona Education Association, the Arizona Association of School Business Officials, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and a host of other organizations.

Peters urged the Arizona Supreme Court to determine that the programs effectively "rerouted" money intended for public schools and run contrary to the intent of the state Constitution's authors to preserve government neutrality regarding religions, to protect the public school system and to avoid forcing citizens to pay for religious instruction they might not agree with.

The voucher programs create a "shadow system of publicly funded private schools," he told the court in December, adding that "odds are overwhelming" that the voucher money will ultimately be diverted to charter schools that are religious in nature.

While the programs, Peters said, pay teachers to "do what public schools do," Division 1 Court of Appeals Chief Judge Ann Scott Timmer pointed out that other states had taken into consideration the unique needs of voucher students and the value of services provided by non-traditional schools when deciding whether vouchers pass constitutional muster.

Rep. Andy Biggs, a Republican from Gilbert who has been a strong proponent of school vouchers, said he hopes the Arizona Supreme Court will issue a broad opinion supporting school vouchers that can be used to justify the expansion of similar programs.

Rep. Chad Campbell, a Democrat from Phoenix, said if the court rules that vouchers are legal he would expect a push among Republicans for expanded use of school vouchers, which he believes will weaken the public school system and waste taxpayer money.

Prior to the December hearing, hundreds of supporters of school vouchers demonstrated near the court, urging the state's high court to rescind the earlier Court of Appeals opinion that found the programs unconstitutional.

One protester, Andrea Weck, exclaimed through a bullhorn that vouchers made it possible to transfer her developmentally disabled daughter from a public school to a private academy in Tempe that has helped the child learn sign-language and begin to read.

Weck, who intervened in the appeal filed by Keller, said she could not afford the $26,000 annual tuition to send her daughter, Lexie, who has autism, cerebral palsy and mild mental retardation, to the Chrysalis Academy without the help of vouchers.

The two voucher programs in Arizona are used by fewer than 500 parents. Both have a funding cap of $2.5 million.

The Supreme Court said it expects to release the opinion of Cain v. Horne by 10:00 a.m. The case number is CV-08-0189. 

–Reporter Jim Small contributed to this article.