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:
WYOMING v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 88-309.
Argued April 25, 1989
Decided June 26, 1989
Michael Douglas White argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Joseph B. Meyer, Attorney General of Wyoming, S. Jane Catón, Assistant Attorney General, and David F. Jankowski.
Jeffrey P. Minear argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Carr, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Edward J. Shawaker, and Robert L. Klarquist. Susan M. Williams argued the cause for respondents Shoshone Tribe et al. With her on the brief were Brice M. Clagett, Saul B. Goodman, W. Richard West, Jr., Dale T. White, and Andrew W. Baldwin. Sky D. Phifer filed a brief for respondents Bath et al.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Arizona et al. by Jim Jones, Attorney General of Idaho, and Clive J. Strong and David J. Barber, Deputy Attorneys General, Robert K. Corbin, Attorney General of Arizona, Marc Racicot, Attorney General of Montana, Brian McKay, Attorney General of Nevada, R. Paul Van Dam, Attorney General of Utah, and Kenneth 0. Eikenberry, Attorney General of Washington; and for the city of Phoenix by Roderick G. McDougall, M. James Callahan, and Katherine Ott Verburg.
Harry R. Sachse, Reid Peyton Chambers, Ethel J. Abeita, and Robert T. Anderson filed a brief for the Native American Rights Fund et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the State of California et al. by John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General of California, R. H. Connett, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas B. Noble, Deputy Attorney General, Fred Vendig, Karen L. Tachiki, and Jerome C. Muys; for the State of New Mexico by Hal Stratton, Attorney General, and Martha C. Dabney and Vickie L. Gabin, Special Assistant Attorneys General; for the County of Chaves et al. by Gary C. Mitchell and Richard A. Simms; for the Salt
Per Curiam.
The judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the decision of this case.

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

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 2