Task: sc_authoritydecision

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of "             nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.

Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
announced the entry of the following order and decree:
Since our opinion which was announced in this case June 23, 1947, two stipulations have been filed in this Court, signed by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Interior of the United States on the one hand and by the Attorney General of the State of California on the other hand. In these stipulations the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior purport to renounce and disclaim for the United States Government paramount governmental power over certain particularly described submerged lands in the California coastal area. In such stipulations the United States Attorney General and Secretary of the Interior furthermore purport to bind the United States to agreements which purport to authorize state lessees of California coastal submerged lands to continue to occupy and exploit those lands, and which agreements also purport to authorize California under conditions set out to execute leases for other submerged coastal lands.
Robert E. Lee Jordan has filed a petition in this Court praying that he be permitted to file a motion as amicus curiae or in the alternative as an intervenor to have the foregoing stipulations and agreements set aside and declared null and void on the ground among others that the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior are without authority to bind the United States by agreements which it is alleged would if valid alienate and surrender the Government’s paramount power over the submerged lands concerning which the stipulations are made.
It is ordered that the petition of Robert E. Lee Jordan to file the motion here to declare the stipulations null and void be denied, without prejudice to the assertion of any right he may have in a proper district court.
It is further ordered that the stipulations between the United States Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior on the one hand and the Attorney General of California on the other, which stipulations purport to bind the United States, be stricken as irrelevant to any issues now before us.
And for the purpose of carrying into effect the conclusions of this Court as stated in its opinion announced June 23, 1947, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:
1. The United States of America is now, and has been at all times pertinent hereto, possessed of paramount rights in, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals and other things underlying the Pacific Ocean lying seaward of the ordinary low-water mark on the coast of California, and outside of the inland waters, extending seaward three nautical miles and bounded on the north and south, respectively, by the northern and southern boundaries of the State of California. The State of California has no title thereto or property interest therein.
2. The United States is entitled to the injunctive relief prayed for in the complaint.
3. Jurisdiction is reserved by this Court to enter such further orders and to issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed advisable or necessary to give full force and effect to this decree.
Inasmuch as the stipulations of July 26, 1947, have been stricken, Mb. Justice Frankfurter desires explicitly to note his understanding that insofar as the meaning or scope or validity of the stipulations may give rise to any legal issue, no such issue has been before the Court or has here been considered.
Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Question: What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision?
A. judicial review (national level)
B. judicial review (state level)
C. Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
D. statutory construction
E. interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
F. diversity jurisdiction
G. federal common law
Answer:

Answer: A