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:
FRANK, POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. MINNESOTA NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION, INC.
No. 87-1956.
Argued March 22, 1989
Decided April 25, 1989
Paul J. Larkin, Jr., argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were former Solicitor General Fried, Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Assistant Attorney General Bolton, Deputy Solicitor General Merrill, and Irene M. Solet.
P. Cameron DeVore argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Mark R. Anfinson and Marshall J. Nelson.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by John P. Borger, Robert Hicks, and Steven R. Shapiro; and for the Association of National Advertisers by Burt Near borne and Gilbert H. Weil.
P. Cameron DeVore, Marshall J. Nelson, W. Terry Maguire, René P. Milam, Charles V. Hamm, and Jeanne S. Whiteing filed a brief for the American Newspaper Publishers Association et al. as amici curiae.
Per Curiam.
We initially noted probable jurisdiction of an appeal and a cross-appeal in this matter. 488 U. S. 815 (1988). Appellee filed suit in District Court to bar enforcement of 18 U. S. C. § 1302, based on the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Postmaster General, among others. Section 1302 prohibits the mailing of any “publication of any kind containing any advertisement of any lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme of any kind offering prizes dependent in whole or in part upon lot or chance, or containing any list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of any such lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme.” The District Court found § 1302 valid as applied to advertisements, but unconstitutional as applied to prize lists, because the statute could prevent the publication of prize lists in news reports. The District Court granted an injunction limited to the latter issue. Minnesota Newspaper Assn., Inc. v. Postmaster General, 677 F. Supp. 1400 (Minn. 1987). Appellants sought review of the ruling on prize lists, and appellee cross-appealed from the ruling on advertisements.
After the Court had noted probable jurisdiction of both appeals, Congress passed two laws affecting the coverage of § 1302. Charity Games Advertising Clarification Act of 1988, §2(a), Pub. L. 100-625, 102 Stat. 3205 (Nov. 7, 1988); Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, §21, Pub. L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2486 (Oct. 17, 1988). Although the first statute does not take effect until May 7, 1990, the parties agreed to dismiss the cross-appeal under this Court’s Rule 53. Minnesota Newspaper Assn., Inc. v. Postmaster General, 488 U. S. 998 (1989).
In this Court, appellants now take the position that the statute does not apply to the noncommercial publishing of prize lists. Brief for Appellants 12, 14-30. In light of this concession, appellee, the original plaintiff in the case, states its willingness to forgo any further claim to the declaratory and equitable relief sought in its complaint. In these circumstances, we conclude that there is no longer any live controversy on the issue whether the statute is constitutional as it applies to prize lists, and that this appeal is moot. There is no justification for our retaining jurisdiction of a civil case where no real controversy is before us. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193, 200-201 (1988). We therefore vacate the judgment below and remand for the District Court to dismiss the portions of the complaint remaining at issue on this appeal. See id., at 200; United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39-40 (1950).
It is so ordered.
Justice White and Justice Marshall dissent.

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

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 1