opinion: SCHOOL BOARD OF CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, et al. v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF VIRGINIA et al.
  No. 72-549.
  Argued April 23, 1973
  Decided May 21, 1973
  George B. Little argued the cause for petitioners in No. 72-549. With him on the briefs was Conrad B. Mattox, Jr. William T. Coleman, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners in No. 72-550. With him on the briefs were Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Norman J. Chachkin, Louis B. Lucas, William L. Taylor, and Anthony G. Amsterdam.
  Philip B. Kurland argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With him on the brief were Edward I. Rothschild, Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General of Virginia, William G. Broaddus and D. Patrick Lacy, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, Frederick T. Gray, Walter E. Rogers, J. Segar Gravatt, R. D. Mcllwaine III, L. Paul Byrne, and J. Mercer White, Jr.
  Solicitor General Griswold argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance in both cases. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Pottinger, A. Raymond Randolph, Jr., Brian K. Landsberg, and John C. Hoyle
  Together with No. 72-550, Bradley et al. v. State Board of Education of Virginia et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in both cases were filed by Stephen J. Poliak, Richard M. Sharp, and David Rubin for the National Education Association, and by Melvin L. Wvlf, Sanford Jay Rosen, and Philip Hirschkop for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. Margie Pitts Hames filed a brief for the Black Parents of Atlanta, Georgia, as amicus curiae urging reversal in No. 72-550.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance in both cases were filed by David I. Carpían for the Jewish Rights Council, and by Harold H. Fuhrman for the National Suburban League, Ltd. Charles S. Conley and Floyd B. McKissick filed a brief for the Congress of Racial Equality as amicus curiae urging affirmance in No. 72-549.
  Per Curiam.
  The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
  Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
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.