The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the policymaking distinction, further holding that the provision did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because there was a rational basis for distinguishing judges who had reached the age of seventy from those who had not.

In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that the Missouri constitutional provision did not violate federal statute or the Equal Protection Clause.

[4] Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, held that under the principles of federalism and dual sovereignty, the Supremacy Clause allows Congress to impose its will on the states, but only when acting under a Constitutionally-delegated power.

[2] The Court also found a rational basis for the retirement age, based in Missouri citizens' interest in maintaining a judiciary fully capable of performing the demanding tasks that judges must perform and the fact that physical and mental capacity sometimes diminishes with age.

The concurrence found the majority's federalism concerns irrelevant to the "actual conflict" preemption, arguing that the cases cited for the plain statement rule involved issues of whether Congress intended for legislation to apply to states at all.