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:
WEST POINT WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. v. CITY OF OPELIKA, ALABAMA.
No. 478.
Argued April 24, 1957.
Decided June 17, 1957.
M. R. Schlesinger argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were N. D. Denson and Tom B. Slade.
R. E. L. Cope argued the cause for appellee. On the brief was Lawrence K. Andrews.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit to recover taxes paid by the appellant to the City of Opelika, Alabama, on the ground that the taxes in question imposed a discriminatory burden on interstate commerce. The state court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, 38 Ala. App. 444, 87 So. 2d 661, rejecting the appellant’s federal contention, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 352 U. S. 924.
Section 130 (a) of Ordinance No. 101-53 of the City of Opelika, as amended by Ordinance No. 103-53, provides that an annual privilege tax of $250 must be paid by any firm engaged in the wholesale grocery business which delivers, at wholesale, groceries in the City from points without the City. Appellant is a Georgia corporation engaged in the wholesale grocery business in West Point, Georgia. It solicits business in the City of Opelika through salesmen; orders are transmitted to appellant’s place of business in Georgia, where they are accepted and the groceries thereupon loaded on trucks and delivered to the City. Appellant has no place of business, office, or inventory in Opelika, its only contact with that City being the solicitation of orders and the delivery of goods.
We held in Nippert v. City of Richmond, 327 U. S. 416, and in Memphis Steam Laundry Cleaner, Inc. v. Stone, 342 U. S. 389, that a municipality may not impose a flat-sum privilege tax on an interstate enterprise whose only contact with the municipality is the solicitation of orders and the subsequent delivery of goods at the end of an uninterrupted movement in interstate commerce, such a tax having a substantial exclusory effect on interstate commerce. In our opinion the tax here in question falls squarely within the ban of those cases. This is particularly so in that Opelika places no comparable flat-sum tax on local merchants. Wholesale grocers whose deliveries originate in Opelika, instead of paying $250 annually, are taxed a sum graduated according to their gross receipts. Such an Opelika wholesaler would have to gross the sum of $280,000 in sales in one year before his tax would reach the flat $250 amount imposed on all foreign grocers before they may set foot in the City. The Commerce Clause forbids any such discrimination against the free flow of trade over state boundaries.
Since the present tax cannot constitutionally be applied to the appellant, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
The ordinance provides for the following “schedule of rates for license or privilege taxes for the conduct of any trade, vocation, profession or other business conducted within the City of Opelika”:
“Each person, firm or corporation engaged in the wholesale grocery business who unloads, delivers, distributes or disposes of groceries at wholesale in the City of Opelika, Alabama which are transported from a point without the City of Opelika, Alabama to a point within the City of Opelika, Alabama, Annual only.$250.00.”
The facts, which are admitted for purposes of the demurrer, are taken from the complaint.
Section 82 of the Ordinance provides for the following rates of tax on local wholesale merchants:
“Where a gross annual business is:
$100,000.00 and less. $35.00
Over $100,000.00 and less than $200,000.00. $50.00
$200,000.00 and less than $500,000.00. $75.00
$500,000.00 and less than $1,000,000.00. $100.00
$1,000,000.00 and less than $2,000,000.00. $200.00
$2,000,000.00 and over. $250.00
“And in addition thereto, one-sixteenth (1/16) of one percent (1%) on the first $500,000.00 gross receipts, plus one-twentieth (1/20) of one percent (1%) on the next $500,000.00 gross receipts plus one-fortieth (1/40) of one percent (1%) on all gross receipts over one million dollars ($1,000,000.00).”
Thus a local wholesale grocer grossing $280,000 in one year would pay a sum of $75, plus 1/16 of one percent of his sales, that is, $175 — a total of $250.

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: 1