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:
THOMAS v. HEMPT BROTHERS.
No. 410.
Argued February 3, 1953.
Decided March 9, 1953.
Henry C. Kessler, Jr. argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Richard W. Oaliher.
James H. Booser argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Sterling G. McNees and Robert L. Myers, Jr.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner Thomas sued the respondent Hempt Brothers in a Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and counsel fees under the provisions of §§ 6, 7 and 16 (b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleged these facts: Hempt Brothers operate a stone quarry in Pennsylvania, use the stone in manufacturing cement mixtures, and then haul these mixtures in trucks to customers. Their customers were the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, an airport, an army depot, and a navy depot, all located within the state of Pennsylvania. The concrete was processed for use by these customers on Pennsylvania projects. The Railroad used its concrete for repair and maintenance of its roadbeds over which were operated interstate passenger and freight trains. The Turnpike used its concrete for laying and building “a highway which handles the flow of commerce between the states.” The airport used concrete to build and erect landing fields to accommodate the flow of airplanes in interstate commerce. Other purchasers used their concrete on “projects which aided the flow of commerce, as will be proven by Plaintiff when he has his day in Court.” Thomas was employed in producing and handling the quarry and concrete products.
On these allegations the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania sustained the trial court’s judgment for Hempt Brothers entered on the ground that the complaint failed to show a recoverable cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 371 Pa. 383, 89 A. 2d 776. And see 62 Pa. D. & C. 618, 626 (1948); and 74 Pa. D. & C. 213, 218 (1950). In sustaining dismissal of the complaint the State Supreme Court recognized that its holding was in conflict with that of the Third Circuit in Tobin v. Alstate Construction Co., 195 F. 2d 577. We granted certiorari because of this conflict. 344 U. S. 895.
We have today affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment in the Alstate case, ante, p. 13. The reasons we gave for affirming that case require that this case be reversed because the state courts erred in holding that the complaint failed to set out a good cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is reversed and the cause remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in No. 296, Alstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, ante, p. 17.
52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 63 Stat. 910, 29 U. S. C. §§ 206, 207, 216 (b).

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