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.

MICHIGAN CITIZENS FOR AN INDEPENDENT PRESS et al. v. THORNBURGH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.
No. 88-1640.
Argued October 30, 1989
Decided November 13, 1989
William B. Schultz argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were David C. Vladeck and Alan B. Morrison.
Deputy Solicitor General Merrill argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for the federal respondents were Acting Solicitor General Wallace, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Michael R. Lazerwitz, and Douglas Letter. Stephen M. Shapiro, Andrew L. Frey, Kenneth S. Getter, Andrew J. Pincus, Clark M. Clifford, Robert A. Altman, and Robert P. Reznick filed a brief for respondent Detroit Free Press, Inc. John Stuart Smith, Gordon L. Lang, Corrine M. Yu, and Lawrence J. Aldrich filed a brief for respondent Detroit News, Inc.
Paul L. Friedman, Anne D. Smith, Philip S. Anderson, and Peter G. Kumpe filed a brief for Little Rock Newspapers, Inc., as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Detroit Renaissance, Inc., et al. by Herschel P. Fink, Richard E. Zuckerman, and David B. Jaffe; for Newspaper Drivers & Handlers, Teamsters Local No. 372, et al. by Gerry M. Miller; for Union Leaders representing Detroit Free Press employees by Bruce A. Miller; and for Jane Daugherty et al. by Barbara Harvey.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Newspaper Publishers Association by P. Cameron DeVore, Marshall J. Nelson, and W. Terry Maguire; for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Robert M. Weinberg, Walter Kamiat, and Laurence Gold; and for James Blanchard et al. by Richard C. Van Dusen.
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Question: What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision?
A. judicial review (national level)
B. judicial review (state level)
C. Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
D. statutory construction
E. interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
F. diversity jurisdiction
G. federal common law
Answer: