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:
BOSTON FIREFIGHTERS UNION, LOCAL 718 v. BOSTON CHAPTER, NAACP, et al.
No. 82-185.
Argued April 18, 1983
Decided May 16, 1983
John F. McMahon argued the cause for petitioners in Nos. 82-185 and 82-246 and filed briefs for petitioner in No. 82-185. Thomas A. Bamico, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, argued the cause pro hac vice for petitioners in No. 82-259. With him on the briefs were Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General, Thomas R. Kiley, First Assistant Attorney General, E. Michael Sloman, Assistant Attorney General, and Marc S. Seigle, Special Assistant Attorney General. Kevin P. Phillips filed a brief for petitioner in No. 82-246.
James S. Dittmar argued the cause for respondents in all cases. With him on the brief were Judith Bernstein Tracy, Peggy A. Wiesenberg, and Gerald Gillerman.
Together with No. 82-246, Boston Police Patrolmen’s Assn., Inc. v. Castro et al.; and No. 82-259, Beecher et al. v. Boston Chapter, NAACP, et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Cooper, Carter G. Phillips, Brian K. Landsberg, Walter W. Barnett, and Dennis J. Dimsey for the United States; by Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, and Daniel R. Levinson for the Equal Employment Advisory Council; by J. Albert Wall, Michael H. Gottesman, Robert M. Weinberg, George H. Cohen, and Laurence Gold for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al.; by Edward J. Hickey, Jr., Michael S. Wolly, and Erick J. Genser for the International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO; by Robert A. Helman, Michele Odorizzi, Daniel M. Harris, Justin J. Finger, Jeffrey P. Sinensky, and Meyer Eisenberg for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith; and by Daniel J. Popeo, Paul D. Kamenar, and Nicholas E. Calió for the Washington Legal Foundation.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by J. Clay Smith, Jr., and Herbert 0. Reid, Sr., for the National Bar Association, Inc., et al.; by 0. Peter Sherwood, Clyde E. Murphy, and Barry L. Goldstein for the City of Detroit; by Joaquin G. Avila, Morris J. Bailer, and Carmen A. Estrada for the League of United Latin American Citizens et al.; by Robert L. Harris and Eva Jefferson Paterson for the Officers For Justice et al.; by Judith I. Avner and Anne E. Simon for the National Organization for Women et al.; by Robert H. Chanin, Richard B. Sobol, and Michael B. Trister for the National Education Association; by E. Richard Larson, Burt Neubome, and Paulette M. Caldwell for the National Black Association et al.; and by Robert Lipshutz, pro se, for Robert Lipshutz et al.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Ronald A. Zumbrun and John H. Findley for the Pacific Legal Foundation; by Jack Greenberg and Eric Schnapper for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; by Arthur Kinoy and Michael Ratner for the Affirmative Action Coordinating Center et al.; and by Walter S. Nussbaum and Donald J. Mooney, Jr., for the Detroit Police Officers Association.
Per Curiam.
In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the District Court’s August 7, 1981, orders enjoining the Boston Police and Fire Departments from laying off policemen and firefighters in a manner that would reduce the percentage of minority officers below the level obtaining at the commencement of layoffs in July 1981. 679 F. 2d 965 (1982). These orders had the effect of partially superseding the operation of the State’s statutory last-hired, first-fired scheme for civil service layoffs, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 31, § 39 (West 1979). Following the Court of Appeals’ decision, Massachusetts enacted legislation providing the city of Boston with new revenues, requiring reinstatement of all police and firefighters laid off during the reductions in force, securing these personnel against future layoffs for fiscal reasons, and requiring the maintenance of minimum staffing levels in the Police and Fire Departments through June 30, 1983. See 1982 Mass. Acts, ch. 190, § 25. In light of these changed circumstances, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for consideration of mootness in light of 1982 Mass. Acts, ch. 190, § 25.
It is so ordered.
Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

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

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 1