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:
BLACK et al. v. AMEN et al.
No. 13.
Argued November 12-13, 1957.
Decided March 3, 1958.
Dean Acheson argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Stanley L. Temko, Scott W. Lucas and Malcolm Miller.
Douglas F. Smith argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Arthur R. Seder, Jr., D. Arthur Walker, Jack 0. Brown and Oliver H. Hughes.
Per Curiam.
Petitioners' amended motion, concurred in by the attorneys for respondents, is granted. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to remand the cause to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enable the parties to file their joint motion for the entry of judgment dismissing the action, as provided in paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement dated February 27, 1958, a copy of which is annexed to the amended motion.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter desires to have it added that he assumes that the legal effect of the Court’s order, in which he joins, upon the opinion and judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case is the conventional one when a case has become moot here pending our decision on the merits. United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U. S. 36, 39.

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