What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. 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. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.

Opinion:
MAHER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF CONNECTICUT v. DOE et al.
No. 76-878.
Decided June 20, 1977
Per Curiam.
The motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Appellees are mothers of illegitimate children who receive welfare benefits from the State of Connecticut under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program administered for the Federal Government by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). They are prosecuting this litigation to challenge the constitutionality of § 52-440b, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. (1977), which would require them, under pain of contempt, to divulge to appellant the names of the fathers of their children.
In 1975, after a three-judge District Court upheld the constitutionality of § 52-440b, we vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of an intervening amendment to § 402 (a) of the Social Security Act, and, if a relevant state proceeding was pending, in light of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and Huffman. v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975). Roe v. Norton, 422 U. S. 391.
On remand the District Court held that the Younger/ Huffman doctrine did not prohibit the issuance of an injunction in this case. 414 F. Supp. 1368 (Conn. 1976). The court also held that § 52-440b remained valid provided the Connecticut welfare authorities first determine, in accordance with § 402 (a) of the federal statute, that the appellees did not have “good cause” for refusing to cooperate, under standards which take into account the “best interests of the child.” 414 F. Supp., at 1381.
Noting that the Secretary of HEW has not yet promulgated regulations defining “good cause” and “best interests of the child,” appellant reads the District Court’s opinion as enjoining any state proceedings under § 52-440b until such guidance is forthcoming. But the court’s opinion contains the following passage in a footnote:
“HEW has taken the position that the entire amendment [to § 402 (a)] will not become effective until the new regulations have been approved. We do not believe that this is the proper construction of the act.
“. . . [T]he wiser course is to require the Commissioner, if he is unable to determine without the aid of specific regulations that his proposed enforcement action is not against the best interests of the child, to postpone any enforcement until the new regulations have been issued and approved.” 414 F. Supp., at 1381 n. 20.
Though it is somewhat ambiguous, the quoted portion can be read to require appellant to make his own determination of “good cause” and “best interests of the child” if he is able to do so without the aid of the HEW regulations. If this is the correct reading, appellant’s apprehension that he is presently barred from proceeding in accordance with § 52-440b would be erroneous.
The day after the District Court issued its opinion on remand a new Connecticut statute became effective, 1976 Conn. Pub. Act No. 76-334, amending Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 17~82b. In pertinent part that statute provides:
“All information required to be provided to the commissioner as a condition of such eligibility [for welfare assistance] under federal law shall be so provided by the supervising relative, provided, no person shall be determined to be ineligible if the supervising relative has good cause for the refusal to provide information concerning the absent parent or if the provision of such information would be against the best interests of the dependent child or children, or any of them. The commissioner of social services shall adopt by regulation . . . standards as to good cause and best interests of the child. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the commissioner as to the determination of good cause or the best interests of such child or children may request a fair hearing in accordance with the provisions of sections 17-2a and 17-2b ”
While it is obvious that this pronouncement is intended to have some effect in the general area of this litigation, its impact on § 52-440b is not clear.
Therefore, we must once again vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand this case. That court must now consider its interpretation of § 52-440b in light of the amendment to § 17-82b, and clarify whether appellant is free to make his own “good cause” and “best interests of the child” determinations in the absence of effective HEW regulations.
It is so ordered.
Pub. L. 93-647, 88 Stat. 2359, amending 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (26) (1970 ed., Supp. V). The District Court also considered a second, subsequent, change in § 402 (a), Pub. L. 94-88, 89 Stat. 436.

Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 1