opinion: UNITED STATES et al. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA et al.
  No. 94-1893.
  Argued December 6, 1995
  Decided February 27, 1996
  Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. With him on the briefs for petitioners in No. 94-1898 were Solicitor General Days, Acting Assistant Attorney General Phillips, Paul R. Q. Wolf son, Douglas N. Letter, Mark B. Stern, Bruce G. Forrest, William E. Kennard, and Christopher J. Wright. H. Bartow Farr III, Richard G. Taranto, Daniel L. Brenner, Neal M. Goldberg, and David L. Nicoll filed briefs for petitioner in No. 94-1900.
  Laurence H. Tribe argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With him on the brief were Jonathan S. Massey, Peter J. Rubin, Mark L. Evans, Kenneth W. Starr, Paul T. Cappuccio, James R. Young, John Thorne, and Michael E. Glover.
  Together with No. 94-1900, National Cable Television Assn., Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Corp. et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the California Cable Television Association by Bruce D. Sokler and Frank W. Lloyd III; and for the Consumer Federation of America et al. by Gigi B. Sohn and Andrew Jay Schwartzman.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Burt Neuborne and Steven R. Shapiro; for BellSouth Corp. by Walter H. Alford, John F. Beasley, William Barfield, and Roger M. Flynt, Jr.; for East Ascension Telephone Co. by Richard A. Epstein; for GTE Corp. by M. Edward Whelan III, John F. Raposa, and Richard A. Cordray; for Mets Fans United/Virginia Consumers for Cable Choice et al. by Samuel A. Simon; for the United States Telephone Association et al. by Michael W. McConnell and Kenneth S. Getter; and for U S West, Inc., by Lloyd N. Cutler, Louis R. Cohen, William T. Lake, and Stuart S. Gunckel.
  Per Curiam.
  The judgment is vacated and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for consideration of the question whether they are moot.
instruction: 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.