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.

Opinion:
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION et al. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
No. 80-1690.
Argued January 11, 1982
Decided March 23, 1982
Newton N. Minow argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Jack R. Bierig, David W. Carpenter, William J. Doyle, and Linda L. Randell.
Howard E. Shapiro argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Baxter, Deputy Solicitor General Shapiro, Elliott Schulder, March Coleman, and L. Barry Costilo
Peter M. Sfikas filed a brief for the American Dental Association as amicus curiae urging reversal.
A brief for the’ State of Ohio et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance was. filed by William J. Brown, Attorney General of Ohio, and Eugene F. McShane, Charles.D. Weller, and Clifton E. Johnson, Assistant Attorneys General; Robert K. Corbin, Attorney General of Arizona; J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General of Colorado, and Thomas P. McMahon, Assistant Attorney General; Carl R. Ajello, Attorney General of Connecticut, and Robert M. Larger and John R. Lacey, Assistant Attorneys General; Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, and John R. Perkins, Assistant Attorney General; Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General of Maryland, and Charles 0. Monk II and Naomi F. Samet, Assistant Attorneys General; Warren Spannaus, Attorney General of Minnesota, and Stephen P. Kilgrijf, Special Assistant Attorney General; Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General of Nebraska, and Dale A. Comer, Assistant Attorney General; JejfBingaman, Attorney General of New Mexico, and James J. Wechsler and Richard H. Levin, Assistant Attorneys General; Robert Abrams, Attorney General of New York, and Lloyd Constantine, Assistant Attorney General; Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General of North Carolina, H. A. Cole, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, and Fred R. Gamin, Assistant Attorney General; Leroy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Carl S. Hisiro, Deputy Attorney General; Dennis J. Roberts II, Attorney General of Rhode Island, and Patrick J. Quinlan, Special Assistant Attorney General; and Chauncey H. Browning, Attorney General of West Virginia, and Charles G. Brown, Deputy Attorney General.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Question: What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision?

Choices:
judicial review (national level)
judicial review (state level)
Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
statutory construction
interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
diversity jurisdiction
federal common law

Answer: 2