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:
UNITED STATES v. MARYLAND SAVINGS-SHARE INSURANCE CORP.
No. 160.
Decided October 19, 1970
Per Curiam.
This is a direct appeal by the United States from a district court judgment holding unconstitutional § 501 (c)(14)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, '26 U. S. C. §501 (c)(14)(B) (1964 ed., Supp. V), on the ground that it arbitrarily discriminates between Maryland Savings-Share Insurance Corp. (MSSIC), the ap-pellee, and-other similar nonprofit, mutual insurers.
MSSIC was established by the Maryland Legislature with the object of insuring the accounts of shareholders of member savings and loan associations. Although first chartered in 1962, it seeks the benefit of § 501 (c) (14) (B), which exempts from tax nonprofit corporations such as appellee but only if organized before September 1, 1957. MSSIC’s position is that September 1, 1957,. is an arbitrary and unconstitutional cutoff date which must be excised from the section, leaving the section applicable to all corporations of the same nature as itsélf regardless of the date of their creation. We do not agree.
Prior to 1951, all savings and loan associations were exempt from taxation of income derived from their operations. Also exempt were nonprofit corporations that insured the savings institutions. In 1951, the exemption for savings and loan associations was discontinued, on findings that the industry had developed to a. point comparable to that of commercial banks. The exemption for insurers, however, was continued, provided they were already in existence as of September 1, 1951. See Revenue Act of 1951, § 313 (b), 65 Stat. 490; S. Rep. No. 781, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 22-29; 2 U. S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1969, 1991-1997 (1951). As of that date three private insurers fell within the scope of the section — two of them in Massachusetts and one in Connecticut. Then, in 1956,'a fourth such corporation was organized in Ohio, and four years later Congress moved the cutoff date forward to September 1, 1957. Act of April 22, 1960, 74 Stat. 54.
In 1963, a similar bill, H. R. 3297, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., which would have moved the cutoff, date forward to January 1, 1963, for the benefit of MSSIC, passed the House, but was never reported out by the Senate Finance Committee. Testimony before the committee indicated that continued forward movement of the date might lead to proliferation of state insurers that could hinder the operations and threaten the financial stability of -the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. See Hearing on H. R. 3297 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 9-10 (1964).
Against this background, the District Court’s invalidation of § 501 (c) (14) (B) was error. The fact that Con-: gress enacts a statute containing a “grandfather clause,” which exempts from the general income tax certain corporations organized prior to a specified date, does not of itself indicate that Congress has made an arbitrary classification. Cf. Stanley v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 295 U. S. 76 (1935); Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes; 220 U. S. 502 (1911); Watson v. Maryland, 218 U. S. 173 (1910); Sampere v. New Orleans, 166 La. 776, 117 So. 827 (1928), aff’d per curiam, 279 U. S. 812 (1929). Normally, a legislative classification will not be set aside if any state of facts rationally justifying it is demonstrated to or perceived by the courts. McDonald v. Board of Election Comm’rs,.394 U. S. 802, 809 (1969); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 426. (1961); Standard Oil Co. v. City of Marysville, 279 U. S. 582, 586-587 (1929). See also Watson v. Maryland, supra, at 178. Here the legislative history of H. R. 3297 affirmatively discloses that Congress had a rational basis for declining in 1963 to broaden the exemption by extending the-cutoff-date of § 501 (c)(T4)(B). Just as a State may provide that after a specified date newly established common carriers must obtain state approval before entering into business so as to prevent proliferation of such carriers and excessive use of the State’s highways, see Stanley v. Public Utilities Comm’n, supra, similarly Congress does not exceed its power to tax nor does it violate the Fifth Amendment when it refuses to exempt from tax newly formed corporations, the multiplication of which might burden otherwise valid federal programs.
Having noted probable jurisdiction by order of October 12, 1970, we now reverse the judgment of the District ^our^'
So ordered;
Mr. Justice Harlan, considering that the issues in this case are deserving of plenary consideration, would set the case for argument.
Internal Revenue Code § 501 (c) (14) (B), 26 U. S. C. §501 (c)(14)(B) (1964 ed., Supp. V), provides:
“(B) Corporations or associations without capital stock organized before September 1, 1957, and operated for mutual • purposes and without profit for the purpose of providing reserve funds for, and insurance of shares or deposits in—
“(i) domestic building and loan associations,
“(ii) cooperative banks without capital stock organized and operated for mutual purposes and without profit, or
“(in) mutual savings banks not having capital stock represented by shares.”
The District Court’s reliance on Mayflower Farms, Inc. v. Ten Eyck, 297 U. S. 266 (1936), was misplaced, since, according to the Court in that case, the legislative record contained no affirmative showing of a valid legislative purpose. We thus heed not pass upon the- continuing validity of Mayflower’s holding. We also find unpersuasive MSSIC’s remaining argument that it is an instrumentality of the State and hence entitled to exemption from federal taxation under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity and under § 115 (a)(1) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 115 (a)(1). The District Court properly rejected this argument.

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: 3