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:
HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255, et al. v. SAX ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.
No. 5.
Argued November 10, 1958.
Decided January 12, 1959.
Arthur J. Goldberg and David E. Feller argued the causes and filed a brief for petitioners.
Marion E. Sibley and Thomas H. Anderson argued the causes for respondents. With them on the brief were Thomas H. Barkdull, Jr. and Samuel J. Kanner.
Together with No. 6, Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255, et al. v. Levy et al., doing business as Sherry Frontenac Hotel, et al., also on certiorari to the same Court.
Per Curiam.
The judgments of the Supreme Court of Florida in these twelve consolidated cases must be reversed. They all concern the power of the courts of Florida to enjoin organizational picketing at twelve Florida resort hotels. After a series of decisions in regard to these and related cases, the Florida Supreme Court, in identical per curiam opinions, affirmed the issuance of permanent injunctions against the picketing.
The Florida courts were without jurisdiction to enjoin this organizational picketing, whether it was activity protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 157, Hill v. Florida ex rel. Watson, 325 U. S. 538, or prohibited by § 8 (b) (4) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b)(4), Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485. See Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, at 481. This follows even though the National Labor Relations Board refused to take jurisdiction, Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, 353 U. S. 20. The record does not disclose violence sufficient to give the State jurisdiction under United Automobile Workers v. Wisconsin Board, 351 U. S. 266. In none of the twelve cases did the Florida trial courts make any finding of violence, and in some an affirmative finding of no violence was made.
Since it was stipulated below that a witness would testify that interstate commerce was involved in the Florida resort hotel industry, and since the parties asked that “Final Decree be entered by the Chancellor upon the record as now made in the light of this Stipulation,” we find it unnecessary to remand for consideration of that question. See Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom, 358 U. S. 99. Other questions raised by respondents are either without merit or irrelevant to this disposition of the cases.
Reversed.
Sax Enterprises, Inc., v. Hotel Employees Union, 80 So. 2d 602; Boca Raton Club, Inc., v. Hotel Employees Union, 83 So. 2d 11; and Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Employees Union, 92 So. 2d 415.

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