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. LUCCHESE, alias LUCRESE, alias LUCASE, alias ARRA, alias LUCHESE.
No. 57.
Argued December 8, 12, 1960.
Decided February 20, 1961.
Wayne G. Barnett argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey, Beatrice Rosenberg and Eugene L. Grimm.
Richard J. Burke argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Myron L. Shapiro.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This denaturalization proceeding was brought in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York under § 338 (a) of the Nationality Act of 1940! 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 738. The “good cause” affidavit was not filed with the complaint. The District Court dismissed the complaint following our decision in United States v. Zucca, 351 U. S. 91, “without prejudice to the government's right to institute a proceeding to denaturalize the defendant upon the filing of the required affidavit.” 149 F. Supp. 952. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the dismissal motion should have been denied. 247 F. 2d 123. We reversed and ordered the case “remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss” the complaint. 356 U. S. 256. The District Court on the remand declined to order a dismissal “without prejudice” and instead entered an order which did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the Government's appeal in an unreported opinion which stated that “there was no basis for [the district judge] to take action other than he did, namely, to comply with the clear command of the Supreme Court, without attempted embellishment. We have no occasion now to pass on the effect of that command upon possible later litigation.”
The Government filed its petition for certiorari only to assure its right to proceed against the respondent in a new proceeding in the event that we should rule in Costello v. United States, ante, p. 265, that the order entered by the District Court for the Southern District of New York in that case precluded the institution of the second denat-uralization action against Costello. Our decision today in Costello establishes that such a form of dismissal does not bar a subsequent proceeding against the respondent. The writ is therefore
Dismissed.
Mr. Justice Harlan 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: 3