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:
LOMENZO, SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEW YORK, et al. v. WMCA, INC., et al.
No. 81.
Decided June 20, 1966.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Thomas E. Dewey, Leonard Joseph and Malcolm H. Bell for appellants.
Leo A. Larkin, Jack B. Weinstein, Leonard B. Sand and Max Gross for appellees.
Per Curiam.
In WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 382 U. S. 4, we affirmed a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York insofar as there appealed by WMCA, Inc., et al., the appellees in the present case. Appellants in this case, Lomenzo et al., challenge other aspects of the same judgment, and all parties now agree that, as to those aspects, the judgment of the District Court has been rendered moot by the actions, of the Court of Appeals of New York in In the Matter of Orans, 17 N. Y. 2d 107, 216 N. E. 2d 311 (1966), and In the Matter of Orans, 15 N. Y. 2d 339, 206 N. E. 2d 854, appeal dismissed 382 U. S. 10 (1965). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is vacated as moot insofar as it concerns the issues here appealed, namely, whether N. Y. Laws 1964, cc. 977-978, 979, 981, are vio-lative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and whether the District Court was entitled to rely on provisions of the New York Constitution possibly affected by the action of this Court in WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U. S. 633.
Mr. Justice Fortas 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: 2