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:
SPEIGHT, T/A HAREM BOOK STORE, et al. v. SLATON et al.
No. 72-1557.
Argued January 7-8, 1974
Decided February 27, 1974
Robert Eugene Smith argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was D. Freeman Hutton.
Thomas R. Moran argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees.
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a decision of a three-judge District Court (356 F. Supp. 1101) declining to intervene in a pending state civil proceeding and holding that such intervention was barred by our decision in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37. The state proceeding, brought against appellants by the Solicitor General of Fulton County, Georgia, sought an injunction against the operation of appellant Speight’s bookstore, and confiscation and destruction of all merchandise on the store’s premises, on the grounds that the store was being used for the “advertising, storage, sale, and exhibition for sale of materials obscene within the meaning of Section 26-2101 of the Criminal Code of Georgia.” The basis for the State’s action was § 26-2103 of the Code under which the use of any premises for the violation of § 26-2101 constitutes a “public nuisance,” thereby triggering the application of state statutory provisions for the abatement of public nuisances, c. 72-2 of the Code of Georgia. The case is here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. §§ 1253, 2101 (b). We noted probable jurisdiction to decide whether under these circumstances federal intervention in the pending state proceedings was barred by our holding in Younger v. Harris, supra.
Since oral argument of this case the Georgia Supreme Court has struck down the application of § 26-2103 in another case involving similar facts. Sanders v. State, 231 Ga. 608, 203 S. E. 2d 153 (1974). In Sanders the State had brought an action to enjoin the operation of a bookstore on the ground that certain publications sold by the store were obscene under § 26-2101. The supreme court held that this application of § 26-2103 “represents an unconstitutional prior restraint when construed and applied to authorize the permanent closure of the book store as a public nuisance upon a finding that a single publication, obscene under the standards of Code Ann. § 26-2101 (b), was sold on its premises.” Id., at 611, 203 S. E. 2d, at 155. As we understand the Georgia court’s decision, the operation of a bookstore could not be enjoined merely because some of its merchandise had been judicially determined to be obscene. The Georgia court cited both the Federal and Georgia Constitutions in its decision, although it was not explicit as to whether each provided, in its view, an independent ground for its holding.
It would appear that this Georgia Supreme Court decision would probably foreclose the state action against which federal injunctive relief was sought by appellants in this case. In that event appellants could obtain full relief in the state court proceeding merely by moving to dismiss the state action, in accord with state procedural rules, in light of Sanders v. State. If that is the case, appellants could not now make any showing of irreparable injury by reason of the state court proceeding, and such a showing is of course required before the federal court could grant the equitable relief, apart from any special considerations involved in Younger v. Harris, supra, at 46.
We therefore vacate the judgment below and remand to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court in Sanders v. State, supra.
It is so ordered.

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

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 0