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:
PALMIERI v. FLORIDA.
No. 131.
Argued November 20, 1968.
Decided December 9, 1968.
Phillip Goldman, by appointment of the Court, 392 U. S. 920, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Howard Mendelow, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Earl Faircloth, Attorney General, and Edward Cowart, Assistant Attorney General.
Per Curiam.
The petitioner was convicted of robbery in the Criminal Court of Dade County, Florida, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal, 189 So. 2d 512, and the Supreme Court of Florida, 198 So. 2d 633. We granted certiorari because the case appeared to present a substantial constitutional question concerning the admissibility at trial of “lineup” identifications made after the petitioner was arrested without probable cause for the sole purpose of gathering evidence against him. 391 U. S. 934. However, upon the complete review of the record that has now become possible, and in the light of oral argument by able and conscientious counsel, it has become evident that the legality of the petitioner’s arrest was not at issue in the Florida appellate courts, and is not challenged here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.

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