opinion: DECKER, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE, et al. v. HARPER & ROW PUBLISHERS, INC., et al.
  No. 113.
  Argued December 16, 1970
  Decided January 12, 1971
  Lee A. Freeman, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Lee A. Freeman, William J. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois, and John P. Meyer, Special Assistant Attorney General, Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Attorney General of West Virginia, and Gene Hal Williams, Deputy Attorney General, Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana, and. Wendell C. Hamachér, Assistant Attorney General, Crawford C.Martin, Attorney General of Texas, and Wayne R. Rodgers, Assistant Attorney General, Paul W. Brown, Attorney General of Ohio, and Dongld Weckstein and Ted B. Clevenger, Assistant Attorneys General, Douglas M. Head, Attorney General of Minnesota, and Eric Miller, Assistant Attorney General, .Robert W. Warren, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and George F. Sieker and Theodore L. Priebe, Assistant Attorneys General, Kent Frizzel, Attorney General of Kansas, and J. Eugene Balloun, Special Assistant Attorney General, Richard L. Curry, David J. Young, Charles E. Griffith III, and Robert E. Kendrick.
  H. Temple.ton Brown argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Robert L. Stern, Lee N. Abrams, W. Donald McSweeney, Earl E; Pollock, Peter Gruénberger, Conrad W. Oberdorfer, Earl A. Jinkinson, Edgar E. Barton, Leo Rosen, Roger.Hunting, and Samuel Weisbard.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by David T. Searls, Harry M. Reasoner, Ray D. Henson, and John C. Bartlett for the American Bar Association et al.; by Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General, and Anthony F. Troy and T. J. Markow, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Commonwealth of Virginia; and by Samuel W. Murphy, Jr., and George S. Leisure, Jr., for the Association of the Bar of the City of New York et al. Edward S. Irons and Mary Helen Sears, pro sése, filed a brief as amici curiae.
  Per Curiam.
  The judgment is-affirmed by an equally divided Court.
  Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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.