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:
GILLETTE CO. v. MINER
No. 81-1493.
Argued November 10, 1982
Decided December 6, 1982
Arthur R. Miller argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were H. Blair White, Russell M. Baird, George A. Platz, and James P. Connolly.
Robert S. Atkins argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Kenneth P. Ross, Paul Bernstein, and Harry G. Fins
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Harold D. Shapiro and Duane C. Quaint for the National Association of Independent Insurers et al.; by Joseph D. Alviani and Wayne S. Henderson for the New England Legal Foundation; and by Thomas J. Brandi and C. Delos Putz, Jr., for the plaintiffs in the “Daikon Shield” IUD Products Liability Litigation et al.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Paul P. Bie-bel, Jr., First Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, and Kathleen Nogan Morrison and William P. Oberhardt, Assistant Attorneys General, for Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General of Illinois, et al.; and by Alan B. Morrison and Frederic Townsend for Public Citizen.
David B. Kahn, William J. Harte, and Kevin M. Forde filed a brief for the Consumer Coalition as amicus curiae.
Per Curiam.
There being no final judgment, the writ of certiorari is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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