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:
BRISCOE et al. v. VIRGINIA
No. 07-11191.
Argued January 11, 2010
Decided January 25, 2010
Richard D. Friedman argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Joseph D. King, Thomas B. Shuttleworth, and Charles B. Lustig.
Stephen R. McCullough, State Solicitor General of Virginia, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were William C. Mims, Attorney General, Martin L. Kent, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Eugene Murphy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alice T. Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General II, and William E. Thro.
Leondra R. Kruger argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Kagan, Assistant Attorney General Breuer, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and David E. Hollar.
Timothy P. O’Toole, Sandra K. Levick, Catharine F. Easterly, and Jeffrey L. Fisher filed a brief for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
A brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed for the State of Indiana et al. by Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General, and Stephen R. Creason, Heather L. Hagan, and Ashley E. Taiman, Deputy Attorneys General, by Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, and James J. Arguin and David S. Friedman, Assistant Attorneys General, by Kevin T. Kane, Chief State’s Attorney of Connecticut, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Troy King of Alabama, Terry Goddard of Arizona, John W. Suthers of Colorado, Joseph R. Biden III of Delaware, Peter J. Nickles of the District of Columbia, Bill McCollum of Florida, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Tom Miller of Iowa, Steve Six of Kansas, Douglas F. Gansler of Maryland, Michael A. Cox of Michigan, Lori Swanson of Minnesota, Anne Milgram of New Jersey, Gary K King of New Mexico, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Richard Cordray of Ohio, W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Henry D. McMaster of South Carolina, Marty J. Jackley of South Dakota, Robert E. Cooper, Jr., of Tennessee, Mark L. Shurtleffoi Utah, Robert M. McKenna of Washington, J. B. Van Hollen of Wisconsin, and Bruce A Salzburg of Wyoming.
Per Curiam.
We vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U. S. 305 (2009).
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: 6