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:
UNITED STATES v. ROBERTSON
No. 94-251.
Argued February 27, 1995
Decided May 1, 1995
Miguel A. Estrada argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Harris, and Michael R. Dreeben, Acting Deputy Solicitor General.
Glenn Stewart Warren, by appointment of the Coúrt, 513 U. S. 985, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Jon May and Ephraim Margolin filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Per Curiam.
Respondent, Juan Paul Robertson, was charged with various narcotics offenses, and with violating § 1962(a) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. § 1961 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. V), by investing the proceeds of those unlawful activities in the “acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” § 1962(a). He was convicted on some of the narcotics counts, and on the RICO count by reason of his investment in a certain gold mine. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the RICO conviction on the ground that the Government had failed to introduce sufficient evidence proving that the gold mine was “engaged in or affect[ed] interstate commerce.” 15 F. 3d 862, 868 (1994). We granted the United States’ petition for certiorari. 513 U. S. 945 (1994).
The facts relevant to the “engaged in or affecting interstate commerce” issue were as follows: Some time in 1985, Robertson entered into a partnership agreement with another man, whereby he agreed to finance a gold mining operation in Alaska. In fulfillment of this obligation, Robertson, who resided in Arizona, made a cash payment of $125,000 for placer gold mining claims near Fairbanks. He paid approximately $100,000 (in cash) for mining equipment and supplies, some of which were purchased in Los Angeles and transported to Alaska for use in the mine. Robertson also hired and paid the expenses for seven out-of-state employees to travel to Alaska to work in the mine. The partnership dissolved during the first mining season, but Robertson continued to operate the mine through 1987 as a sole proprietorship. He again hired a number of employees from outside Alaska to work in the mine. During its operating life, the mine produced between $200,000 and $290,000 worth of gold, most of which was sold to refiners within Alaska, although Robertson personally transported approximately $30,000 worth of gold out of the State.
Most of the parties’ arguments, here and in the Ninth Circuit, were addressed to the question whether the activities of the gold mine “affected” interstate commerce. We have concluded we do not have to consider that point. The “affecting commerce” test was developed in our jurisprudence to define the extent of Congress’ power over purely intrastate commercial activities that nonetheless have substantial mierstate effects. See, e. g., Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942). The proof at Robertson’s trial, however, focused largely on the interstate activities of Robertson’s mine. For example, the Government proved that Robertson purchased at least $100,000 worth of equipment and supplies for use in the mine. Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ suggestion, all of those items were not purchased locally (“drawn generally from the stream of interstate commerce,” 15 F. 3d, at 869 (internal quotation marks omitted)); the Government proved that some of them were purchased in California and transported to Alaska for use in the mine’s operations. Cf. United States v. American Building Maintenance Industries, 422 U. S. 271, 285 (1975) (allegation that company had made local purchases of equipment and supplies that were merely manufactured out of state was insufficient to show that company was “engaged in commerce” within the meaning of § 7 of the Clayton Act). The Government also proved that, on more than one occasion, Robertson sought workers from out of state and brought them to Alaska to work in the mine. Cf. id., at 274. Furthermore, Robertson, the mine’s sole proprietor, took $30,000 worth of gold, or 15% of the mine’s total output, with him out of the State.
Whether or not these activities met (and whether or not, to bring the gold mine within the “affecting commerce” provision of RICO, they would have to meet) the requirement of substantially affecting interstate commerce, they assuredly brought the gold mine within § 1962(a)’s alternative criterion of “any enterprise . . . engaged in . . . interstate or foreign commerce.” As we said in American Building Maintenance, a corporation is generally “engaged ‘in commerce’” when it is itself “directly engaged in the production, distribution, or acquisition of goods or services in interstate commerce.” Id., at 283. See also Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S. 186, 195 (1974).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.

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: 3