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, Petitioner
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION.
No. 17-2.
Supreme Court of the United States
April 17, 2018.
Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, John P. Cronan, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Morgan L. Goodspeed, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Ross B. Goldman, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Bradford L. Smith, David M. Howard, Julie Brill, John Frank, Jonathan Palmer, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, James M. Garland, Alexander A. Berengaut, Lauren K. Moxley, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Robert M. Loeb, Brian P. Goldman, Evan M. Rose, Hannah Garden-Monheit, Alec Schierenbeck, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The Court granted certiorari in this case to decide whether, when the Government has obtained a warrant under 18 U.S.C. § 2703, a U.S. provider of e-mail services must disclose to the Government electronic communications within its control even if the provider stores the communications abroad. 583 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 356, 199 L.Ed.2d 261 (2017).
In December 2013, federal law enforcement agents applied to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for a § 2703 warrant requiring Microsoft to disclose all e-mails and other information associated with the account of one of its customers. Satisfied that the agents had demonstrated probable cause to believe that the account was being used to further illegal drug trafficking, a Magistrate Judge issued the requested § 2703 warrant. App. 22-26. The warrant directed Microsoft to disclose to the Government the contents of a specified e-mail account and all other records or information associated with the account "[t]o the extent that the information ... is within [Microsoft's] possession, custody, or control." Id., at 24.
After service of the § 2703 warrant, Microsoft determined that the account's e-mail contents were stored in a sole location: Microsoft's datacenter in Dublin, Ireland. Id., at 34. Microsoft moved to quash the warrant with respect to the information stored in Ireland. The Magistrate Judge denied Microsoft's motion. In re Warrant To Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 15 F.Supp.3d 466 (S.D.N.Y.2014). The District Court, after a hearing, adopted the Magistrate Judge's reasoning and affirmed his ruling. See In re Warrant To Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197, 204-205 (C.A.2 2016). Soon after, acting on a stipulation submitted jointly by the parties, the District Court held Microsoft in civil contempt for refusing to comply fully with the warrant. Id., at 205. On appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the denial of the motion to quash and vacated the civil contempt finding, holding that requiring Microsoft to disclose the electronic communications in question would be an unauthorized extraterritorial application of § 2703. Id., at 222.
The parties now advise us that on March 23, 2018, Congress enacted and the President signed into law the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act), as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. 115-141. The CLOUD Act amends the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., by adding the following provision:
"A [service provider] shall comply with the obligations of this chapter to preserve, backup, or disclose the contents of a wire or electronic communication and any record or other information pertaining to a customer or subscriber within such provider's possession, custody, or control, regardless of whether such communication, record, or other information is located within or outside of the United States." CLOUD Act § 103(a)(1).
Soon thereafter, the Government obtained, pursuant to the new law, a new § 2703 warrant covering the information requested in the § 2703 warrant at issue in this case.
No live dispute remains between the parties over the issue with respect to which certiorari was granted. See Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. Galioto, 477 U.S. 556, 559, 106 S.Ct. 2683, 91 L.Ed.2d 459 (1986). Further, the parties agree that the new warrant has replaced the original warrant. This case, therefore, has become moot. Following the Court's established practice in such cases, the judgment on review is accordingly vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions first to vacate the District Court's contempt finding and its denial of Microsoft's motion to quash, then to direct the District Court to dismiss the case as moot.
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: 3