opinion: CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD v. HERMANN et al.
  No. 540.
  Argued April 25, 1957.
  Decided May 6, 1957.
  Solicitor General Rankin argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Daniel M. Friedman, Franklin M. Stone and Robert Burstein.
  Roland E. Ginsburg argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
  Per Curiam.
  Petitioner had instituted an administrative enforcement proceeding against the respondents, a group of individuals and business entities operating as the “Skycoach” air travel system. The Board’s complaint charged violation of its regulations as well as of the Civil Aeronautics Act and sought certain revocation and cease-and-desist orders against respondents. In the course of the proceedings, the Hearing Examiner issued a number of subpoenas duces tecum calling for the production of certain categories of documents of the respondent companies covering specified periods of time. On a motion to quash on the grounds, inter alia, that the subpoenas were vague, excessively broad in scope, and oppressive, both the Hearing Examiner and the Board found that the subpoenas described the documents to be produced with sufficient particularity, were reasonable in scope, and were not oppressive. Upon respondents’ continued refusal to honor the subpoenas, petitioner filed this enforcement proceeding. Initially the trial judge continued the cause for 10 days "on condition that respondents . . . make the documents specified in the administrative subpenas . . . available immediately to the representatives of the Civil Aeronautics Board for examination and copying at the usual places of business of the named respondents . . . Upon the expiration of this period, the court, on a showing that respondents had not complied with this condition, entered an order of enforcement allowing “a sufficient length of time between dates for the production of the documents ... so that the respondents will not be deprived of all of their books and records at the same time.” The court found that it could not say “that any of the documents or things called for in any of the subpoenas are immaterial or irrelevant to the proceedings before the Board . . without an examination of each of the items ordered produced. The Court of Appeals reversed, establishing certain procedural requirements the Board must follow before an enforcement proceeding is in order. 237 F. 2d 359.
  As we read the order of the District Court, it duly enforced the Board’s right to call for documents relevant to the issues of the Board’s complaint, with appropriate provisions for assuring the minimum interference with the conduct of the business of respondents. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to reinstate its enforcement order of May 16, 1955. See § 1004 (b), Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1021, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 644 (b); Brown v. United States, 276 U. S. 134, 142-143 (1928); Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186 (1946); Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U. S. 501, 509 (1943). Of course this enforcement order leaves open to the respondents ample opportunities for objecting, on relevant grounds, to the admissibility into evidence of any particular document.
  It is so ordered.
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.