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:
BLOW et al. v. NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 387.
Decided February 1, 1965.
Jack Greenbergt Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit III, Derrick A. Bell, Jr., Charles. L. Black, Jr., Samuel S. Mitchell and Floyd B. McKissick for petitioners.
T. W. Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Petitioners, two Negroes, approached the Plantation Restaurant in the company of 35 to 40 other Negroes. This restaurant served whites only and carried a sign to that effect on its front door. Pursuant to this policy the owner of the restaurant locked the door against the Negroes, though from time to time he would open the door to admit white customers and relock it after they had entered. The restaurant was some 60 feet fróm the highway/ the property between the. restaurant and the highway being owned by the restaurant proprietor. The Negroes waited outside the door, some on a shrubbery box six or eight feet away, others up to 15 feet distant. The owner asked the Negroes to leave; but they continued to wait quietly outside until they were arrested. For this conduct petitioners were indicted'.and convicted for violation of § 14-134 of the North Carolina General Statutes, making it an offense to “go or enter upon the lands of another, without a license therefor” and “after being forbidden to do so.” The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed petitioners’ convictions on March 18, 1964. 261 N. C. 463, 135 S. E. 2d 14; 261 N. C. 467, 135 S. E. 2d 17.
The Plantation Restaurant is situated on Interstate Highway 301 in the town of Enfield, North Carolina. Adjoining the restaurant and owned by the same person is the Enfield Motel. The restaurant’s menu and other advertising are posted in the rooms of this motel. The Plantation Restaurant and Enfield Motel are advertised on billboards for some miles up and down Highway 301. They are further advertised on the radio and in the newspapers.
Since these facts make it clear that the Plantation Restaurant “serves or offers to serve interstate travelers,” it must be held that the restaurant is a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of §§201 (b)(2) and (c) (2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in places of public accommodation and removes peaceful attempts to be served on an equal basis from the category of punishable activities. Although the conduct in the present cases occurred prior to the enactment of the Act, the still-pending convictions are abated by its passage.” Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, ante, at 308. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is granted, the judgments are vacated, and the cause remanded for dismissal of the indictments.
It is so ordered.
Me. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Hablan, and Me. Justice White would affirm the judgments of the Supreme Court of North Carolina for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, ante, at 318, 322, 327.
Me. Justice Stewaet would vacate the judgments of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and remand the case to that court for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, ante, at 326.

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