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:
INDIANA STATE POLICE PENSION TRUST et al. v. CHRYSLER LLC et al.
No. 08A1096.
Decided June 9, 2009
Together with No. 08A1099 (08-1513), Center for Auto Safety et al. v. Chrysler LLC et al., and No. 08A1100, Pascale v. Chrysler LLC et al., also on applications for stay.
Per Curiam.
The applications for stay presented to Justice Ginsburg and by her referred to the Court are denied. The temporary stay entered by Justice Ginsburg on June 8, 2009, is vacated.
A denial of a stay is not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal issues. In determining whether to grant a stay, we consider instead whether the applicant has demonstrated “(1) a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari or to note probable jurisdiction; (2) a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous; and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.” Conkright v. Frommert, post, at 1402 (Ginsburg, J., in chambers) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). In addition, “in a close case it may be appropriate to balance the equities,” to assess the relative harms to the parties, “as well as the interests of the public at large.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted).
“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, ante, at 433 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion, and the “party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Ante, at 433-434. The applicants have not carried that burden.
“[T]he propriety of [a stay] is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case,” and the “traditional stay factors contemplate individualized judgments in each case.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). Our assessment of the stay factors here is based on the record and proceedings in these cases alone.

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