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:
MATHIAS et al. v. WORLDCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.
No. 00-878.
Argued December 5, 2001 —
Decided May 20, 2002
Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General of Illinois, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were James E. Ryan, Attorney General, A. Benjamin Goldgar and Michael R Doyle, Assistant Attorneys General, Myra L. Karegianes, John P. Kelliher, and Thomas R. Stanton.
Barbara McDowell argued the cause for the United States as respondent under this Court’s Rule 12.6 urging affirmance. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Katsas, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Mark B. Stern, Charles W. Scarborough, and John A. Rogovin.
Paul M. Smith argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondents WorldCom Technologies, Inc., et al. were William M. Hohengarten, Michael B. De-Sanctis, Darryl M. Bradford, John J. Hamill, William Single IV, Brian J. Leske, and Richard Metzger. David W. Carpenter, Stephen B. Kinnaird, and Marc C. Rosenblum filed a brief for respondent AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc., et al. Stephen M. Shapiro, John E. Muench, Theodore A. Livingston, Robert M. Dow, Jr., Michael W. McConnell, Martin H. Redish, and William M. Schur filed a brief for respondent Illinois Bell Telephone Co., dba Ameritech Illinois.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of New Jersey et al. by John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, Andrea Silkowitz and Nancy Kaplen, Assistant Attorneys General, and Stefanie A. Brand, Deputy Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Bill Pryor of Alabama, Bruce M. Botelho of Alaska, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Robert A. Butterworth of Florida,' Thurbert E. Baker of Georgia, Alan G. Lance of Idaho, Steve Carter of Indiana, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan, Ray Cooper of North Carolina, Herbert D. Soil of the Northern Mariana Islands, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, Mark Barnett of South Dakota, and Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah; for the Coalition for Local Sovereignty by Kenneth B. Clark; for the Council of State Governments et al. by Richard Ruda and James I. Crowley; and for the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission by Maryanne Reynolds Martin and Bohdan R. Pankiw.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for BellSouth Corp. et al. by Mark L. Evans, Michael K. Kellogg, Sean A. Lev, Aaron M. Panner, William P. Barr, Mark J. Mathis, Michael D. Lowe, Charles R. Morgan, and John W. Hunter; and for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund by Lesley Szanto Friedman, Aidan Synnott, Martha F. Davis, and Isabelle Katz Pinzler.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners et al. by James Bradford Ramsay, Carl F. Patka, and Neil T. Erwin; and for Sprint Corp. by David P. Murray.
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari to consider three questions: (1) whether a state commission’s action reláting to the enforcement of an interconnection agreement is reviewable in federal court under 47 U. S. C. § 252(e)(6) (1994 ed., Supp. IV); (2) whether a state commission waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity by voluntarily participating in the regulatory scheme established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56; and (3) whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), permits suit for prospective relief against state public utility commissioners in their official capacities for. alleged ongoing violations of that Act. 532 U. S. 903 (2001). After full briefing and oral argument, it is now clear that petitioners were the prevailing parties below, and seek review of uncongenial findings not essential to the judgment and not binding upon them in future litigation. As a general rule, a party may not appeal from a favorable judgment simply to obtain review of findings it deems erroneous. See New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U. S. 645 (1934) (per curiam).
We have since granted certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review the same questions, arising in the same factual context. Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., and United States v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 534 U. S. 1072 (2001). Our decision in those cases is released today. See Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., ante, p. 635. The writ in this case is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
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: 1