 And so the gist of the question was, is this a direct benefit to these private or religious schools? If it is a, quote, direct benefit, then it would be in violation of the Alaska Constitution. The defendants in this case argued that it's not a direct benefit to the schools, that it's an indirect benefit, that the money goes to the parents, and then the parents can decide how they want to spend this. They can spend it at a public school. They can spend it at a private. They can buy things at Walmart for their classes.