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:
ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA et al.
No. 8,
Orig.
Decided June 3, 1963 Decree entered March 9, 1964— Amended decree entered February 28, 1966 — Decided and supplemental decree entered January 9, 1979 — Decided March 30, 1983
Second supplemental decree entered April 16, 1984
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE.
The Court having, on March 30, 1983, rendered its decision on the several Exceptions to the Final Report of the Special Master herein, approving the recommendation that the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Quechan Indian Tribe, and the Cocopah Indian Tribe be permitted to intervene, approving some of his further recommendations and disapproving others, all as specified in this Court’s opinion, 460 U. S. 605 (1983), the following supplemental decree is now entered to implement the decision of March 30, 1983.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
A. Paragraphs (2) and (5) of Article 11(D) of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964 (376 U. S. 340, 344-345), are hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) The Cocopah Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 9,707 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 1,524 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of September 27,1917, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; June 24, 1974, for lands reserved by the Act of June 24, 1974 (88 Stat. 266, 269);
(5) The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 129,767 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 20,076 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of September 19, 1890, for lands transferred by the Executive Order of said date; February 2,1911, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; provided that the quantities fixed in this paragraph, and in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be subject to appropriate adjustments by agreement or decree of this Court in the event that the boundaries of the respective reservations are finally determined.
B. Paragraph 1(A) of the Decree of January 9, 1979 (439 U. S. 419, 423) is hereby amended to read as follows:
I
ARIZONA
A. Federal Establishments’ Present Perfected Rights The federal establishments named in Art. II, subdivision (D), paragraphs (2), (4), and (5) of the Decree entered March 9, 1964, in this case:
Annual
Defined Area Diversions Net
of Land(Acre-Feet) Acres Priority Date
1) Cocopah Indian Reservation 7,681 1,206 Sept. 27, 1917
2) Colorado 358,400 53,768 Mar. 3, 1865
River Indian 252,016 37,808 Nov. 22, 1873
Reservation 51,986 7,799 Nov. 16, 1874
8) Fort Mojave Indian Reservation 27,969 4,327 Sept. 18, 1890 75,566 11,691 Feb. 2, 1911
C. In addition to the mainstream diversion rights in favor of the Indian Reservations specified in Paragraph 1(A) of the Decree of January 9, 1979, as amended by Paragraph B of this decree, a mainstream diversion right of 2,026 acre-feet for the Cocopah Reservation shall be charged against the State of Arizona with a priority date of June 24, 1974.
D. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Decree entered on March 9, 1964, and the Supplemental Decree entered on January 9, 1979, shall remain in full force and effect.
E. The allocation of costs previously made by the Special Master is approved and no further costs shall be taxed in this Court, absent further proceedings after entry of this Decree.
F. The Special Master appointed by the Court is discharged with the thanks of the Court.
G. The Court shall retain jurisdiction herein to order such further proceedings and enter such supplemental decree as may be deemed appropriate.
Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.
The quantity of water in each instance is measured by (i) diversions or (ii) consumptive use required for irrigation of the respective acreage and for satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less.

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