The Court concluded that

“It is significant that the instant legislation and resulting programs were modeled after the programs upheld in Fullilove.  I conclude that the DOT, FHA, and CFLHD’s policies do not violate equal protection since they are supported by longstanding congressional policies related to achieving the important governmental objective of remedying discrimination.  Additionally, the challenged programs are narrowly tailored to achieve their legitimate objectives.”

The Court considered the applicability of Croson, Fullilove, and Metro and decided that Croson was not controlling in Adarand because the program was a federal program implemented within Colorado.  As a result, Fullilove and Metro applied.  For the DBE program to be declared as constitutional, the Court said it must serve "important governmental objectives and that it is substantially related to achievement these objectives."  In this regard, the Court said that "Although Congress made no specific findings on the subject, the Court in Fullilove was satisfied, as I am here, that Congress had ‘abundant historical basis from which it could conclude’ such findings sufficient to demonstrate important governmental objectives underlying the program."

The Court then evaluated whether the program was "narrowly tailored" and stated that the "DBE program must be analyzed to assure that it does not mandate its provisions in an inflexible manner and that it successfully ensures minimum impact on non-DBEs."  The Court found that the waiver provision of the program allowed flexibility and that the annual certification mechanism was "reasonably calculated to insure legitimate, qualified participants, so that the program does not become overinclusive in the sense of tolerating abuse of the program by non-DBEs."  The Court also found that the program was not underinclusive since it provides that businesses may apply for certification and establish their qualifications to participate.”