What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. 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. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.

Opinion:
KOLOD et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 133.
Certiorari denied October 9, 1967.
Rehearing and certiorari granted and case decided January 29, 1968.
Edward Bennett Williams, Harold Ungar and W. H. Erickson for petitioners.
Solicitor General Griswold, former Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Sidney M. Glazer for the United States.
Per Curiam.
The petition for rehearing is granted and the order denying petitioners’ petition for the writ of certiorari, 389 U. S. 834, is set aside. The petition for rehearing alleges that petitioners’ counsel was informed after the petition for the writ of certiorari was filed that petitioner Alderisio’s conversations were monitored through electronic surveillance conducted by a government agency at Alderisio’s place of business in Chicago. The Court invited the Solicitor General to respond to the petition for rehearing. 389 U. S. 966. The Solicitor General responded that the petition should be denied because the case did not come within “. . . the policy of the Department of Justice to make disclosure to the courts if it finds (1) that a defendant was present or participated in a conversation overheard by unlawful electronic surveillance, and (2) that the government has thereby obtained any information which is arguably relevant to the litigation involved.” The Solicitor General stated that “As a result of his inquiries and examination, he is satisfied that there is nothing that is arguably relevant to the present case,” that is, “no overheard conversation in which any of the petitioners participated is arguably relevant to this prosecution.”
We read the response as admitting that Alderisio’s conversations were overheard by unlawful electronic eavesdropping but as justifying nondisclosure on the basis of the Department’s determination that the information obtained was not arguably relevant to this prosecution. We cannot accept the Department’s ex parte determination of relevancy in lieu of such determination in an adversary proceeding in the District Court. Accordingly we grant the petition for certiorari as to each of the petitioners Alderisio and Alderman, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the District Court for a hearing, findings, and conclusions on the nature and relevance to these convictions of any conversations that may be shown to have been overheard through unlawful electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio’s place of business in Chicago. In such proceedings, the District Court will confine the evidence presented by both sides to that which is material to questions of the content of any electronically eavesdropped conversations at petitioner Alderisio’s place of business in Chicago, and of the relevance of any such conversations to petitioners’ subsequent convictions. The District Court will make such findings of fact on these questions as may be appropriate in light of the further evidence and of the entire existing record. If the District Court decides, on the basis of such findings, that the convictions of the petitioners were not tainted by the use of evidence improperly obtained, it will enter new final judgments of convictions based on the existing record as supplemented by its further findings, thereby preserving to all affected parties the right to seek further appropriate appellate review. If, on the other hand, the District Court concludes after such further proceedings that the conviction of a petitioner was tainted, it would then become its duty to accord such petitioner a new trial. Hoffa v. United States, 387 U. S. 231, 233-234.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Petitioner Kolod died in August 1967 and the petition for cer-tiorari as to him is dismissed.

Question: What is the ideological direction of the decision?

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 1