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:
SAFEWAY STORES, INC., v. VANCE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY.
No. 69.
Argued November 21, 1957.
Decided January 20, 1958.
John B. Tittmann argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Douglas Stripp.
Robert J. Nordhaus argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Sam Dazzo.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to No. 67, Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., decided today, ante, p. 373. In the present case the Court of Appeals has held that a private action for treble damages does lie under § 4 of the Clayton Act for violation of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. 239 F. 2d 144. Because of the conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Nashville Milk Co. case, 238 F. 2d 86, we granted certiorari. 352 U. S. 1023.
The complaint in this case alleges both sales “at unreasonably low prices” and price discriminations in violation of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. For the reasons set forth in our Nashville Milk Co. opinion, ante, p. 373, we hold that the complaint should have been dismissed insofar as it rests on alleged unlawful selling at unreasonably low prices, and that the respondent was entitled to a trial as to the charges of unlawful price discrimination. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas, joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Brennan, see ante, p. 383.]
The complaint does not ask for injunctive relief under § 16 of the Clayton Act.

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

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 1