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:
LOMENZO, SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEW YORK, et al. v. WMCA, INC., et al.
No. 81.
Decided June 20, 1966.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Thomas E. Dewey, Leonard Joseph and Malcolm H. Bell for appellants.
Leo A. Larkin, Jack B. Weinstein, Leonard B. Sand and Max Gross for appellees.
Per Curiam.
In WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 382 U. S. 4, we affirmed a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York insofar as there appealed by WMCA, Inc., et al., the appellees in the present case. Appellants in this case, Lomenzo et al., challenge other aspects of the same judgment, and all parties now agree that, as to those aspects, the judgment of the District Court has been rendered moot by the actions, of the Court of Appeals of New York in In the Matter of Orans, 17 N. Y. 2d 107, 216 N. E. 2d 311 (1966), and In the Matter of Orans, 15 N. Y. 2d 339, 206 N. E. 2d 854, appeal dismissed 382 U. S. 10 (1965). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is vacated as moot insofar as it concerns the issues here appealed, namely, whether N. Y. Laws 1964, cc. 977-978, 979, 981, are vio-lative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and whether the District Court was entitled to rely on provisions of the New York Constitution possibly affected by the action of this Court in WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U. S. 633.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 1