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:
CARDONA v. POWER et al.
No. 673.
Argued April 18, 1966.
Decided June 13, 1966.
Paul O’Dwyer argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was W. Bernard Richland.
Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General of New York, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Louis J. Lejkowitz, Attorney General, and George C. Mantzoros, Brenda Soloff, Barry J. Lipson and Amy Juviler, Assistant Attorneys General.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by Leo Pfeffer and Joseph B. Robison for the American Jewish Congress, and by Norman S. Fink for Nathan Straus.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case was argued with Katzenbach v. Morgan, ante, p. 641, also decided today. We there sustained the constitutionality of § 4 (e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and held that, by force of the Supremacy Clause and as provided in § 4 (e), the State of New York’s English literacy requirement cannot be enforced against persons who had successfully completed a sixth grade education in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the language of instruction was other than English. In this case, which was adjudicated by the New York courts before the enactment of § 4 (e), appellant unsuccessfully sought a judicial determination that the New York English literacy requirement, as applied to deny her the right to vote in all elections, violated the Federal Constitution.
Appellant was born and educated in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and has lived in New York City since about 1948. On July 23, 1963, she attempted to register to vote, presenting evidence of United States citizenship, her age and residence; and she represented that although she was able to read and write Spanish, she could not satisfy New York’s English literacy requirement. The New York City Board of Elections refused to register her as a voter solely on the ground that she was not literate in English. Appellant then brought this proceeding in state court against the Board of Elections and its members. She alleged that the New York English literacy requirement as applied was invalid under the Federal Constitution and sought an order directing the Board to register her as a duly qualified voter, or, in the alternative, directing the Board to administer a literacy test in the Spanish language, and, if she passed the test, to register her as a duly qualified voter. The trial court denied the relief prayed for and the New York Court of Appeals, three judges dissenting, affirmed. 16 N. Y. 2d 639, 209 N. E. 2d 119, remittitur amended, 16 N. Y. 2d 708, 827, 209 N. E. 2d 556, 210 N. E. 2d 458. We noted probable jurisdiction. 382 U. S. 1008.
Although appellant’s complaint alleges that she attended a school in Puerto Rico, it is not alleged therein nor have we been clearly informed in any other way whether, as required by § 4 (e), she successfully completed the sixth grade of a public school in, or a private school accredited by, the Commonwealth. If she had completed the sixth grade in such a school, her failure to satisfy the New York English literacy requirement would no longer be a bar to her registration in light of our decision today in Katzenbach v. Morgan. This case might therefore be moot; appellant would not need any relief if § 4 (e) in terms accomplished the result she sought. Cf., e. g., Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U. S. 115, 119-120. Moreover, even if appellant were not specifically covered by § 4 (e), the New York courts should in the first instance determine whether, in light of this federal enactment, those applications of the New York English literacy requirement not in terms prohibited by § 4 (e) have continuing validity. We therefore vacate the judgment, without costs to either party in this Court, and remand the cause to the Court of Appeals of New York for such further proceedings as it may deem appropriate.
u {s so ordered
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see ante, p. 659.]
Presumably the predominant classroom language of the school she attended was other than English, and thus that element of § 4 (e) is satisfied. If the predominant classroom language had been English, and if she had successfully completed the sixth grade, then she would be entitled to vote under § 168 of the New York Election Law. See n. 2, in Katzenbach v. Morgan, ante.

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