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:
PALMER et al. v. THOMPSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF JACKSON, et al.
No. 107.
Argued December 14, 1970
Decided June 14, 1971
Black, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burgee, C. J., and HarlaN, Stewart, and Blackmun, JJ., joined. Burger, C. J., post, p. 227, and Blackmun, J., post, p. 228, filed concurring opinions. Douglas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 231. White, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 240. Marshall, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan and White, JJ., joined, post, p. 271.
Paul A. Rosen and William M. Kunstler argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the briefs were Ernest Goodman and Arthur Kinoy. ■
William F. Goodman, Jr., argued the cause for respondents. On the brief were John E. Stone, Thomas H. Watkins, and Elizabeth W. Grayson.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Leonard, and Deputy Solicitor General Wallace for the United States, and by Armand Derfner for James Moore et al.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court
In 1962 the city of Jackson, Mississippi, was maintaining five public parks along with swimming pools, golf links, and other facilities for use by the public on a racially segregated basis. Four of the swimming pools were used by whites only and one by Negroes only. Plaintiffs brought an action in the United States District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that this state-enforced segregation of the races was a violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and asking an injunction to forbid such practices. After hearings the District Court entered a judgment declaring that enforced segregation denied equal protection of the laws but it declined to issue an injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and we denied certiorari. The city proceeded . to desegregate its public parks, auditoriums, golf courses, and the city zoo. However, the city council decided not to try to operate the public swimming pools on a desegregated basis. ■ Acting in its legislative capacity, the council surrendered its lease on one pool and closed four which the city owned. A number of Negro citizens of Jackson then filed this suit to force the city to reopen the pools and operate them on a desegregated basis. The District Court found that the closing was justified to preserve peace and order and because the pools could not be operated economically on an integrated basis. It held the city’s action did not deny black citizens equal protection of the laws. The Court of Appeals sitting en banc affirmed, six out of 13 judges dissenting. That court rejected the contention that since the pools had been closed either in whole or in part to avoid desegregation the city council’s action was a denial of equal protection of the laws. We granted certiorari to decide that question. We affirm..
I
Petitioners rely chiefly on the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment which forbids any State to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” There can be no doubt that a major purpose of this amendment was to safeguard Negroes against discriminatory state laws — state Jaws that fail to give Negroes protection equal to that afforded white people. History shows that' the achievement of equality for Negroes was the urgent purpose not only for passage of the Fourteenth Amendment but .for the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as well. See, e. g., Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71-72 (1873). Thus the Equal Protection Clause was principally designed- to protect Negroes against discriminatory action by the States. Here there has unquestionably been “state action” because the official local government legislature, the city council, has closed the public swimming pools of Jackson. The question, however, is whether this closing of the pools is state action that denies “the equal protection of the laws” to Negroes. It should be noted first that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any Act of Congress purports to impose an affirmative duty on a State to begin to opejate or to continue to operate swimming pools. Furthermore, this is -not a- case where whites are permitted to use public' facilities while blacks are denied access. It is not a case where a city is maintaining different sets of facilities for blacks and-whites and forcing the races to remain separate in recreational or educational activities. See, e. g., Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526 (1963); Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954).
Unless, therefore, as petitioners urge, certain past cases require us to hold that closing the pools to all denied equal protection to Negroes, we must agree with the courts below and affirm.-
II
- Although petitioners cite a number of our previous cases, the only two which even plausibly support their, argument are Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U. S. 218 (1964), and Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369 (1967). For the reasons that " follow, however, neither case leads us to reverse the judgment here.
A. In Griffin the public schools of Prince .Edward County, Virginia, were closed under, authority of state and county law, and so-called “private schools” were set up in their place' to avoid a court deségregation order. At the same time, public schools in other counties in Virginia remained open. In Prince Edward County the “private schools” were open to whites only and these schools were in fact run by a practical partnership between State and county, designed to preserve segregated education. We pointed out in Griffin the many facets of state involvement in the running of the “private schools.” The State General Assembly had made available grants of $150 per child to make the program possible. . This was supplemented by a county grant program of $100 per child and county property tax credits for citizens contributing to the “private schools.” Under those circumstances we held that the closing of public schools in just one county while the State helped finance “private schools” was a scheme to perpetuate segregar tion in education which constituted a denial of equal protection of the laws. Thus the Griffin case simply treated the school program for what it was — an operation of Prince Edward County schools under a thinly disguised “private” school system actually planned and carried out by the State and the county to maintain segregated education with public funds. That case can- give no comfort to petitioners here. This record supports no intimation that Jackson has not completely and finally ceased running swimming pools for all time. Unlike Prince Edward County, Jackson has not pretended to close public pools only to run them under a “private” label. It is true that the Leavell Woods pool, previously leased by the city from the YMCA,’ is now run by that organization and appears to be open only to whites. And according to oral argument, another pool owned by the city before 1963 is now owned and operated by Jackson State College, a predominantly black institution, for college students and their guests. But unlike the “private schools” in Prince Edward County there is nothing here to show the city is directly or indirectly involved in the funding or operation of either pool. If the time ever comes when Jackson attempts to run segregated public pools either directly or. indirectly, or participates in a subterfuge whereby pools are nominally run by “private parties” blit actually by the city, relief will be available in the federal courts.
B. Petitioners also claim that Jackson’s closing of the public pools authorizes or encourages private pool owners to discriminate on account of race and that such “encouragement” is prohibited by Reitman v. Mulkey, supra.
In Reitman, California had repealed two laws relating to racial discrimination in the sale of housing by passing a constitutional amendment establishing the right of private persons to discriminate on racial grounds in real estate transactions. This Court there accépted what it designated as the holding of the Supreme Court of California, namely that the constitutional amendment was an official authorization of racial discrimination which significantly involved the State in the discriminatory acts of private parties. 387 U. S., at 376-378, 380-381.
In the first place there are no findings here about any state “encouragement” of discrimination, and it is not clear that any such theory was ever considered by the District Court. The implication of petitioners’ argument appears to be that the fact the city turned over to the YMCA a pool it had previously leased is sufficient to show automatically that the city has conspired with the YMCA to deprive Negroes of the opportunity to swim in integrated pools. Possibly in a case where the city and the YMCA were both parties, a court could find that the city engaged in a subterfuge, and that liability could be fastened on it as an active participant in a conspiracy with the YMCA. We need not speculate upon such a possibility, for there is no such finding here, and it does not appear from this record that there was evidence to support such a.finding. Reitman v. Mulkey was based on a theory that the evidence was sufficient to show the State, was abetting a refusal to rent apartments .on racial grounds. On this record, Reitman offers no more support to petitioners than does Griffin.
Ill
Petitioners have also argued that respondents’ action violates the Equal Protection Clause because the decision to close the pools was motivated by a desire to avoid integration of the races. . But no case in this Court has held that a legislative act may violate equal protection solely because of the motivations of the" men who voted for it. The pitfalls of such analysis were set forth clearly in the landmark opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 130 (1810), where the Court declined to set aside the Georgia Legislature’s. sale of lands on the theory that its members were corruptly motivated in passing the bill.
A similar contention that illicit motivation should lead to a finding of unconstitutionality was advanced in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 383 (1968), where this Court rejected the argument that a defendant could not be punished for burning his draft card because Congress had allegedly passed the statute to stifle dissent. That opinion explained well the hazards of declaring a law unconstitutional because of the motivations of its sponsors. First, it is extremely difficult for a court to ascertain the motivation, or collection of different motivations, that lie behind a legislative enactment. Id., at 383, 384. Here, for example, petitioners have argued that the Jackson pools were closed because of ideological opposition to racial integration in swimming pools. Some evidence in the record appears to support this argument. On the other hand the courts below found that the pools were closed because the city council felt they could not be operated safely and economically on an integrated basis. There is substantial evidence in the record to support this conclusion. It is difficult or impossible for any court to determine the “sole” or “dominant” motivation behind the choices of a group of legislators. Furthermore, there is an element of futility in a judicial attempt to invalidate a law because of the bad motives of its supporters; If the law is struck down for this reason, rather than because of its facial content, or effect, it would presumably be valid as soon as the legislature or relevant governing body re-passed it for different reasons.
It is true there is language in some, of our cases interpreting the Fourteenth and. Fifteenth Amendments which may suggest that the motive or purpose behind a law is relevant to its constitutionality. Griffin v. County School Board, supra; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 347 (1960). But the focus in those cases was on the actual effect of the enactments, not upon the motivation which led the States to behave as they did. In Griffin, as discussed supra, the State was in fact perpetuating a segregated public school system by financing segregated “private” academies. And in Gomillion the Alabama Legislature’s gerrymander of the boundaries of Tuskegee excluded virtually all Negroes from voting in town elections. Here the record indicates only that Jackson once ran segregated public swimming pools and that no public pools are now maintained by the city. Moreover, there is no evidence in this record to show that the city is now covertly aiding the maintenance and operation of pools which are private in name only. It shows no state action affecting blacks differently from whites.
Petitioners have argued strenuously that a city’s possible motivations to ensure safety and save money cannot validate an otherwise impermissible state action. This proposition is, of course, true. Citizens may not be compelled to forgo their constitutional rights because officials fear public hostility or desire to save money. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60 (1917); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 (1958); Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526 (1963). But the issue here is whether black citizens in Jackson are being denied their' constitutional rights when the city has closed the public pools to black and white alike. Nothing in the history or the language of the Fourteenth Amendment nor in any of oúr prior cases persuades us that the closing of the Jackson swimming pools to all its citizens constitutes a denial of “the equal protection of the laws.”
IV
Finally, some faint and unpersuasive argument has been made by petitioners that the closing of the pools violated the Thirteenth Amendment which freed the Negroes from slavery. The argument runs this way: The first Mr. Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 552 (1896), argued strongly that the purpose of the. Thirteenth Amendment was not only to outlaw slavery but also all of its “badges, and incidents.” This broad reading of the amendment was affirmed in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409 (1968). The denial of the right of Negroes to swim in pools with white people is said to be a “badge or incident” of slavery. Consequently, the argument seems to run, this Court should declare that the city’s closing of the pools to keep the two races from swimming together violates the Thirteenth Amendment. To reach that result from the Thirteenth Amendment would severely stretch its short simple words and do violence to,its history. .Establishing this Court’s authority under the Thirteenth Amendment to declare new laws to govern the thousands of towns and cities of the country would grant it a lawmaking power far beyond the imagination of the amendment’s authors. Finally,, although the Thirteenth Amendment is a skimpy collection of words to allow this Court to legislate new laws to control the operation of swimming pools throüghout the length and breadth of this Nation, the. Amendment does contain other words that we held in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. could empower Congress to outlaw “badges of slavery.” The last sentence of the Amendment reads:
“Congress shall have power to enforce this'article >by appropriate legislation.”
But Congress has passed no law under this power to regulate a city’s opening or closing of swimming pools or other recreational facilities.
It has not been so many years since it was first deemed proper and lawful for cities to tax their citizens to build and operate swimming pools for the public. Probably few persons, prior to this case, would have imagined that cities could be forced by five lifetime judges to construct or refurbish swimming pools which they choose not to operate for any reason, sound or unsound. Should citizens of Jackson or any other city be able to establish in court that public, tax-supported swimming pools are being denied to one group because of color and supplied to another, they will be entitled to relief. But that is not the case here.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Clark v. Thompson, 206 F. Supp. 539 (SD Miss. 1962).
313 F. 2d 637 (CA5), cert. denied, 375 U. S. 951 (1963).
The court’s opinion is not officially reported.
419 F. 2d 1222 (CA5 1969).
My Brother White’s dissent suggests that the. pool closing operates unequally on white and blacks because, “The action of the city in this case interposes a major deterrent to seeking judicial or executive help in eliminating racial restrictions on the use of public facilities.” Post, at 269. It is difficult to see the force of this argument since Jackson has desegregated its public parks, auditoriums, golf courses, city zoo, and the record indicates it no.w maintains no segregated public facilities.
Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 187 F. Supp. 42 (ED La. 1960), aff’d, 365 U. S. 569 (1961), does not lead us to reverse the judgment here. -In Bush we wrote no opinion but'merely affirmed a lower federal court judgment that' held unconstitutional _ certain laws designed to perpetuate segregation in the Louisiana public schools. One law held unconstitutional by the lower court empowered the State Governor to close any school ordered to integrate; another empowered him to close all state schools if one were integrated. Of course that case dicl not involve swimming pools but rather public schools, an enterprise we have described as “perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.” Brown v. Board of Education, supra, at 493. More important, the laws struck down in Bush were part of an elaborate package of legislation ' through which Louisiana sought to maintain public education on a segregated basis, not to end public -education. See ajso Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (ED La. 1960). Of ' course there was no serious problem of probing the motives of a legislature in Bush because most of the Louisiana statutes explicitly stated they were designed to forestall integrated schools. 187 F. Supp., at 45.
Tr. of Oral Arg. 31-32.
There is no question before us here whether the black citizens of Jackson may. be entitled to utilize the swimming facilities of Leavell Woods pool. Nothing on the present record indicates state involvement in the running of that pool. The YMCA, which apparently now operates the pool, was not joined as a party and thus, of course, no judgment could be entered against it.

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