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:
BELL v. KELLY, WARDEN
No. 07-1223.
Argued November 12, 2008
Decided November 17, 2008
Richard R Bress argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Maureen E. Mahoney, J. Scott Ballenger, Matthew K. Roskoski, Robert Lee, Jonathan P. Sheldon, and Randi R. Vickers.
Katherine B. Burnett, Senior Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, and Jerry P. Slonaker, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Former State Court Judges by Susan J. Kohlmann; for the National Association of Federal Defenders et al. by Andrea D. Lyon, Pamela Harris, and Frances H. Pratt; and for the Virginia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Ashley C. Parrish and Marvin D. Miller.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Idaho et al. by Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho, and Jessica M. Lorello, L. LaMont Anderson, and Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorneys General, by Kevin T. Kane, Chief State’s Attorney of Connecticut, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Troy King of Alabama, Dustin McDaniel of Arkansas, John Suthers of Colorado, Joseph R. Biden III of Delaware, Bill McCollum of Florida, Thurbert E. Baker of Georgia, Mark J. Bennett of Hawaii, Steve Carter of Indiana, Steve Six of Kansas, Jack Conway of Kentucky, Martha Coakley of Massachusetts, Lori Swanson of Minnesota, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Mike McGrath of Montana, Jon Bruning of Nebraska, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Kelly A. Ayotte of New Hampshire, Anne Milgram of New Jersey, Gary K. King of New Mexico, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, W. A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., of Pennsylvania, Henry D. McMaster of South Carolina, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, Greg Abbott of Texas, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, Robert M. McKenna of Washington, and Bruce A Salzburg of Wyoming; for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger; and for the Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys by Joel R. Bmnscom.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari 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