opinion: KOLOD et al. v. UNITED STATES.
  No. 133.
  Certiorari denied October 9, 1967.
  Rehearing and certiorari granted and case decided January 29, 1968.
  Edward Bennett Williams, Harold Ungar and W. H. Erickson for petitioners.
  Solicitor General Griswold, former Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Sidney M. Glazer for the United States.
  Per Curiam.
  The petition for rehearing is granted and the order denying petitioners’ petition for the writ of certiorari, 389 U. S. 834, is set aside. The petition for rehearing alleges that petitioners’ counsel was informed after the petition for the writ of certiorari was filed that petitioner Alderisio’s conversations were monitored through electronic surveillance conducted by a government agency at Alderisio’s place of business in Chicago. The Court invited the Solicitor General to respond to the petition for rehearing. 389 U. S. 966. The Solicitor General responded that the petition should be denied because the case did not come within “. . . the policy of the Department of Justice to make disclosure to the courts if it finds (1) that a defendant was present or participated in a conversation overheard by unlawful electronic surveillance, and (2) that the government has thereby obtained any information which is arguably relevant to the litigation involved.” The Solicitor General stated that “As a result of his inquiries and examination, he is satisfied that there is nothing that is arguably relevant to the present case,” that is, “no overheard conversation in which any of the petitioners participated is arguably relevant to this prosecution.”
  We read the response as admitting that Alderisio’s conversations were overheard by unlawful electronic eavesdropping but as justifying nondisclosure on the basis of the Department’s determination that the information obtained was not arguably relevant to this prosecution. We cannot accept the Department’s ex parte determination of relevancy in lieu of such determination in an adversary proceeding in the District Court. Accordingly we grant the petition for certiorari as to each of the petitioners Alderisio and Alderman, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the District Court for a hearing, findings, and conclusions on the nature and relevance to these convictions of any conversations that may be shown to have been overheard through unlawful electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio’s place of business in Chicago. In such proceedings, the District Court will confine the evidence presented by both sides to that which is material to questions of the content of any electronically eavesdropped conversations at petitioner Alderisio’s place of business in Chicago, and of the relevance of any such conversations to petitioners’ subsequent convictions. The District Court will make such findings of fact on these questions as may be appropriate in light of the further evidence and of the entire existing record. If the District Court decides, on the basis of such findings, that the convictions of the petitioners were not tainted by the use of evidence improperly obtained, it will enter new final judgments of convictions based on the existing record as supplemented by its further findings, thereby preserving to all affected parties the right to seek further appropriate appellate review. If, on the other hand, the District Court concludes after such further proceedings that the conviction of a petitioner was tainted, it would then become its duty to accord such petitioner a new trial. Hoffa v. United States, 387 U. S. 231, 233-234.
  The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
  It is so ordered.
  Mr. Justice Black dissents.
  Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
  Petitioner Kolod died in August 1967 and the petition for cer-tiorari as to him is dismissed.
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.