At first blush, the Supreme Court's recent decision in "Horne v. Flores" (2009) appears to be about the proper standard for determining when to modify a previous judgment, a topic that would interest only civil procedure geeks. Yet, on closer examination, "Horne" is about giving local and state officials discretion to solve education problems and, ultimately, about solving education issues without spending more money. "Horne" offers three straightforward implications for school business officials. First, there are many ways to comply with federal law. Second, it is easier to modify or dissolve injunctions. Third, state and local control of education remains a paramount constitutional value. In sum, "Horne" is not just a case for those who obsess about civil procedure and the role of the federal courts. "Horne" is a decision that expands the discretion of education officials, limits the role of federal courts, and reaffirms the importance of local control.