in zelman, the beneficiaries were the parents. the vouchers had to go to them. >> i don't understand the answer question.e breyer's you give it to the hospital equivalent of the sto. why aren't the hospitals the beneficiaries of that program, just as you say the parents are here? >> it the hospitals are the beneficiaries, they have to give the money on a religiously neutral basis. >> the analogy would be the patients are the beneficiaries. the government wants to help cancer patients. it will give money to hospitals to help cancer patients. it gives money to various hospitals under this program. if one of those hospitals says, we only treat catholic cancer patients, that is unconstitutional. >> that is the other issue. we are trying to separate, in your argument, the issue that some of these organizations are religiously affiliated. -- affiliated from the argument that they will only give money to individuals of a particular religion. i understand your argument for the latter, but i must say i do not understand your argument for t

so what's the difference between the program here and the one the was held constitutional in zelman? >> the difference is that zelman the money went to the parents without any religious discrimination. religion was not involved in the distribution of the money to the parents. the parents and zelman got funds based on their financial need and the fact that their children went to school in cleveland, which was a feeling school district. and the program was to give them, based on their financial need, was to give them a voucher. in giving the parents a voucher, nobody said to the parent, but your religion? nobody said to the parent, are you going to send your child to a religious school? the court said as clearly as it could in zelman that i would be unconstitutional. >> but who's your says to the parent who is going to the school what is your religion? >> the sto who gives them the scholarship. >> and other words, the sto gives this question only to catholics to go to catholic schools -- >> yes. >> -- only to jews to go to jewish schools? >> exactly. but most of the money -- simic but

so what's the difference between the program here and the one that was held constitutional in zelman? >> the difference is that in zelman the money went to the parents without any religious discrimination. religion was not involved in the distribution of the money to the parents. the parents in zelman got funds based on their financial need and the fact that their children went to school in cleveland, which was a failing school district. and the program was to give them, based on their financial need -- was to give them a voucher. in giving the parent the voucher nobody said to the parent, what's your religion? nobody said to the parent are you going to send your child to a religious school? the court said as clearly as it could in zelman that that would be unconstitutional. >> who here says to the parent who's going to the school what is your religion? >> the s.t.o. who gives them the scholarship. >> in other words, the s.t.o. gives the scholarship to only catholics -- >> exactly, exactly. >> with the gentleman's money you claim is at issue is the money -- the contributor to the s.t.

. >> something that worried me in zelman is this, and i might get doherty answer. probably arizonas been this summer and billions of dollars on public schools, doesn't it? i don't know the exact amount is. >> yes, your honor. >> let's take 40 or 40% of that and spend it through this program on religious schools. imagine that happens. at that point, people might get into considerable discussion about what qualifies, when it doesn't qualify, whether it is a valid school or is just teaching religion and what the rules and regulations are. how is arizona dealing with this problem by saying there are no regulations by saying that -- is there a system for dealing with the legitimacy and the circumstances under which a particular religion schools qualify for this program? who decides and how? >> under the tax credit program, the schools have to be qualified private schools in order to participate in the tax credit. >> that must be a set of regulations and rules. >> criminally what it is, is that private schools in arizona satisfy the compulsory education law as long as th

>> the difference is that in zelman, the money went to the parents without any religious determination. the parents got funds based on their financial need and the fact that their children went to school in cleveland. the program was to give them, based on their financial need, a voucher. in giving the parents a voucher, nobody asked them what their religion was. nobody asked if they were going to send their children to a religious school. the court said as clearly as it could that that would be unconstitutional. >> so they say to the parents going to the school, what is your religion -- in other words, they give the scholarship only to catholics? >> exactly. >> what you claim as an issue is the money that contributed to the sto has failed to give to the government when it is the government's money. that decision of whether to give the money an sto or not, whether to give it to a religious affiliated one or non-affiliated want, there is no religious discrimination in the choice. >> let me put it to you this way -- suppose the government in this case gave the money directly, and they th