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:
FARLEY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 686,
Misc.
Decided June 24, 1957.
Petitioner pro se.
Solicitor General Bankin' for the United States.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, as is the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Petitioner was convicted of bank robbery in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Under 28 U. S. C. § 1915 he applied to the District Court for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Petitioner, who was assisted by court-appointed counsel in preparing his application, contended that the evidence was insufficient to justify his conviction and that the trial court had committed reversible error by permitting the United States Attorney to ask him irrelevant and prejudicial questions about another criminal offense. Petitioner requested that the District Court make available a transcript of the trial record so he could substantiate his claimed errors. In reply the United States Attorney filed an affidavit asserting that the evidence was sufficient to sustain petitioner’s conviction. However the affidavit did not directly controvert petitioner’s claim that the prosecuting attorney had been allowed to inject irrelevant and prejudicial matter into the trial. Counsel for petitioner then filed an affidavit in answer supporting petitioner’s allegation of errors.
The District Court refused the request for a transcript of the trial record and denied the application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis on the ground that the appeal was “not taken in good faith” because it was “frivolous and without merit” and “[t]he evidence amply supported the verdict.” Petitioner then asked the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal in forma pauperis but that court denied his request indicating that his claimed errors were without substance. 242 F. 2d 338. And see 238 F. 2d 575.
As things now stand conflicting affidavits have been introduced concerning petitioner’s contention of errors at the trial. If the allegations made by petitioner and his counsel are correct then it seems quite clear to us that his appeal cannot be characterized as frivolous. Before his allegation of errors can be accurately evaluated, however, to ascertain if they do have any merit he should be furnished with a transcript of the trial record — unless counsel can agree on a statement of the relevant facts or some other means are devised to make the minutes of the trial available to petitioner — so that he has an opportunity to substantiate his allegations and point out their significance and so that they can be appraised on a dependable record. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 352 U. S. 565. In our judgment petitioner has not yet been afforded an adequate opportunity to show the Court of Appeals that his claimed errors are not frivolous so as to enable that court to review properly the District Court’s certification that the appeal was in bad faith. Accordingly the judgment below must be vacated and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent.

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