What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations

Opinion:
FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORP., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO FIRST AMERICAN CORP., et al. v. EDWARDS
No. 10-708.
Argued November 28, 2011
Decided June 28, 2012
Aaron M. Panner argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Michael K. Kellogg, Gregory G. Ra-pawy, Brendan J. Crimmins, Charles A. Newman, and Michael J. Duvall.
Jeffrey A. Lamken argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Cyril V. Smith, David A. Reiser, Edward Kramer, Robert K. Kry, Martin V To taro, Richard S. Gordon, Martin E. Wolf, and James W. Spertus.
Anthony A. Yang argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Verrilli, Assistant Attorney General West, Deputy Solicitor General Stewart, Michael Jay Singer, Christine N. Kohl, David M. Gossett, and Deepak Gupta.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for ACA International by Tomio B. Narita and Jeffrey A Topor; for the American Bankers Association et al. by Thomas M. Hefferon and William F. Sheehan; for the American Land Title Association by Roy T. Englert, Jr., and Ariel N. Lavinbuk; for the Association of Global Automakers, Inc., et al. by Donald M. Falk; for the Consumer Data Industry Association by Anne P. Fortney; for DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar et al. by R. Matthew Cairns, Mary Massaron Ross, and Hilary A. Ballentine; for Experian Information Solutions, Inc., by Meir Feder and Daniel J. McLoon; for Facebook, Inc., et al. by Patrick J. Carome; for the International Association of Defense Counsel by Mary-Christine Sungaila and J. Mitchell Smith; for the National Association of Home Builders et al. by Christopher M. Whitcomb, Thomas J. Ward, and Nick Cammarota; for the National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys by David M. Schultz, Joel D. Bertocchi, and Stephen R. Swofford; for the New England Legal Foundation et al. by Benjamin G. Robbins, Martin J. Newhouse, Robin S. Conrad, and Kathryn Comer-ford Todd; for the Pacific Legal Foundation et al. by Deborah J. La Fetra, John C. Eastman, and Anthony T Caso; for the Real Estate Services Providers Council, Inc., by Jay N. Varón and Michael D. Lejfel; and for the Stewart Information Services Corp. et al. by Peter D. Keisler, Jonathan F. Cohn, Matthew D. Krueger, and Christine R. Milton.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Missouri et al. by Chris Koster, Attorney General of Missouri, and James R. Layton, Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: John J Burns of Alaska, Kamala D. Harris of California, David M. Louie of Hawaii, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Tom Miller of Iowa, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Gary K. King of New Mexico, Robert M. McKenna of Washington, and Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia; for AARP et al. by Scott L. Nelson and Allison M. Zieve; for the Electronic Privacy Information Center by Marc Rotenberg; for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al. by Janell M. Byrd, Jon M. Greenbaum, Stephen M. Dane, John Payton, Debo P. Adegbile, Elise C. Boddie, and Leslie Proll; for the National Association of Independent Land Title Agents by Gregory W. Happ; for Public Law Professors by Jonathan S. Massey; for the Reporter and Advisers to Restatement (Third)-of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment by Douglas Laycock; and for Erick Carter et al. by John T Murray.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Toyota Economic-Loss Plaintiffs by Steve W. Berman, Marc M. Seltzer, and Frank M. Pitre; for Trust Law and ERISA Law Professors by Melanie B. Leslie; and for Birny Birnbaum et al. by Shelley R. Sadin.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.

Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 2