opinion: SELVAGE v. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION
  No. 87-6700.
  Argued January 17, 1990
  Decided February 21, 1990
  Richard H. Burr III argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Julius L. Chambers, George H. Kendall, and David Cunningham.
  Robert S. Walt, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Jim Mattox, Attorney General, Mary F. Keller, First Assistant Attorney General, Lou McCreary, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Michael P. Hodge, Dana E. Parker, Andrea L. March, and Don Morehart, Assistant Attorneys General.
  Kent S. Scheidegger filed a brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
  Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association by Stanley G. Schneider; and for Harvey Earvin by Robert L. McGlasson.
  Per Curiam.
  In March 1988, petitioner sought certiorari to review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refusing to stay the execution of his death sentence. We granted a stay of execution, 485 U. S. 983 (1988), and withheld disposition of the petition pending our decision in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989). Following that decision we granted certiorari in petitioner’s case to answer this question:
  “At the time petitioner was tried, was there ‘cause’ for not raising a claim based upon arguments later accepted in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989), and if not, would the application of a procedural bar to the claim result in a ‘fundamental miscarriage of justice,’ Smith v. Murray, 477 U. S. 527, 537-538 (1986)?” 493 U. S. 888 (1989).
  Petitioner contended in his brief and in his oral argument that his claim for relief based on Penry would no longer be deemed procedurally barred by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, respondent here, disputes that contention.
  Because our decision in Penry was handed down after petitioner’s petition for certiorari was filed, and may have affected the view of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on the issue whether petitioner’s claim is presently barred, we think that issue should be decided before we address the question on which we granted certiorari. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is more familiar with Texas law than we are, and we therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to it for determination whether petitioner’s Penry claim is presently procedurally barred under Texas law.
  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.