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:
BLAU v. UNITED STATES.
No. 22.
Argued November 7, 1950.
Decided December 11, 1950.
Samuel D. Menin argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Solicitor General Perlman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Mclnerney, John F. Davis and J. F. Bishop.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In response to a subpoena, petitioner appeared as a witness before the United States District Court Grand Jury at Denver, Colorado. There she was asked several questions concerning the Communist Party of Colorado and her employment by it. Petitioner refused to answer these questions on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate her. She was then taken before the district judge where the questions were again propounded and where she again claimed her constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. The district judge found petitioner guilty of contempt of court and sentenced her to imprisonment for one year. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 180 F. 2d 103. We granted certiorari because the decision appeared to deny rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The holding below also was in conflict with recent decisions of the Fifth and Ninth Circuits. Estes v. Potter, 183 F. 2d 865; Alexander v. United States, 181 F. 2d 480.
At the time petitioner was called before the grand jury, the Smith Act was on the statute books making it a crime among other things to advocate knowingly the desirability of overthrow of the Government by force or violence; to organize or help to organize any society or group which teaches, advocates or encourages such overthrow of the Government; to be or become a member of such a group with knowledge of its purposes. These provisions made future prosecution of petitioner far more than “a mere imaginary possibility . . . .” Mason v. United States, 244 U. S. 362, 366; she reasonably could fear that criminal charges might be brought against her if she admitted employment by the Communist Party or intimate knowledge of its workings. Whether such admissions by themselves would support a conviction under a criminal statute is immaterial. Answers to the questions asked by the grand jury would have furnished a link in the chain of evidence needed in a prosecution of petitioner for violation of (or conspiracy to violate) the Smith Act. Prior decisions of this Court have clearly established that under such circumstances, the Constitution gives a witness the privilege of remaining silent. The attempt by the courts below to compel petitioner to testify runs counter to the Fifth Amendment as it has been interpreted from the beginning. United States v. Burr, 25 Fed. Cas., Case No. 14,692e, decided by Chief Justice Marshall in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Virginia; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547; Ballmann v. Fagin, 200 U. S. 186; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616; cf. United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, 698, 699.
Reversed.
Me. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The grand jury’s questions which petitioner refused to answer were as follows: “Mrs. Blau, do you know the names of the State officers of the Communist Party of Colorado ?” “Do you know what the organization of the Communist Party of Colorado is, the table of organization of the Communist Party of Colorado?" “Were you ever employed by the Communist Party of Colorado ?” “Mrs. Blau, did you ever have in your possession or custody any of the books and records of the Communist Party of Colorado?” “Did you turn the books and records of the Communist Party of Colorado over to any particular person?” “Do you know the names of any persons who might now have the books and records of the Communist Party of Colorado?” “Could you describe to the grand jury any books and records of the Communist Party of Colorado?”
The Fifth Amendment provides: “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .” U. S. Const., Amend. V.
62 Stat. 808,18 U. S. C. § 2385.

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: 0