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:
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE et al. v. McCREARY et al.
No. 84-277.
Argued February 20, 1985
Decided March 27, 1985
Marvin E. Frankel argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Marc D. Stern.
Marvin Schwartz argued the cause for respondents and filed a brief for respondents Scarsdale Creche Committee et al. Vincent K. Gilmore filed a brief for respondents McCreary et al.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Burt Neubome, Charles S. Sims, Norman Dorsen, and Steven R. Shapiro; for the American Jewish Committee et al. by Samuel Rabinove; and for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith et al. by Ruti G. Teitel, Meyer Eisenberg, Justin J. Finger, and Jeffrey P. Sinensky.
Solicitor General Lee, Acting Assistant Attorney General Willard, and Deputy Solicitor General Bator filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Steven Frederick McDowell filed a brief for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights as amicus curiae.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Powell took no part in the decision of this case.

Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 1