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:
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al. v. FELZEN et al.
No. 97-1732.
Argued January 11, 1999
Decided January 20, 1999
Michael K. Kellogg argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Mark C. Hansen, Neil M. Gor-such, and Sean A. Lev.
David C. Frederick argued the cause for the United States et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Harvey J. Goldschmid, David M. Becker, Paul Gonson, Jacob H. Stillman, and Eric Summergrad.
John G. Kester argued the cause for respondents and filed a brief for respondent Archer Daniels Midland Co. With him on the brief was George A. Borden. Thom W. Moss filed a brief for respondent Directors of Archer Daniels Midland Co. Terry Rose Saunders, Robert M. Roseman, and Henry P. Monaghan filed a brief for respondent Paul Felzen et al.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Barclays Global Investors, N. A., et al. by Andrew N. Vollmer, Andrew B. Weissman, and Joseph A. Grundfest; for the Council of Institutional Investors by Carter G. Phillips, Bradford A. Berenson, and David W. Jones; and for Public Citizen, Inc., et al. by Leslie Brueclcner, Brian Wolfman, and Alan B. Morrison.
Daniel J. Popeo filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Leonard N. Sosnov filed a brief for Lawrence A. Hamermesh et al. as amici curiae.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice O’Connor 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: 2