What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded.

Opinion:
WARNER-LAMBERT CO., LLC, ET AL. v. KENT ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 06-1498.
Argued February 25, 2008
Decided March 3, 2008
Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Daniel E. Troy, Rebecca K. Wood, Eamon P. Joyce, Quin M. Sorenson, David Klingsberg, and Steven Glickstein.
Daryl Joseffer argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bucholtz, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Douglas N. Letter, Daniel Meron, Gerald F. Masoudi, and Eric M. Blumberg.
Allison M. Zieve argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were David R. Parker, Brian Wolf man, Scott L. Nelson, Theodore Goldberg, and David Bennet Rodes.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America by Kenneth S. Getter, David M. Gossett, Robin S. Conrad, and Amar D. Sarwal; for the Generic Pharmaceutical Association by Jay R Lefkowitz; for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America by Bert W. Rein; and for the Product Liability Advisory Council by Robert N. Weiner.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Kansas et al. by Paul J. Morrison, Attorney General of Kansas, Stephen R. McAllister, Solicitor General, and Jared S. Maag, Deputy Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Talis J. Colberg of Alaska, Terry Goddard of Arizona, Bill McCollum of Florida, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Tom Miller of Iowa, Jack Conway of Kentucky, Michael A. Cox of Michigan, Lori Swanson of Minnesota, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Mike McGrath of Montana, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Kelly A. Ayotte of New Hampshire, Anne Milgram of New Jersey, Gary K. King of New Mexico, Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Marc Dann of Ohio, W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia, Robert M. Mc-Kenna of Washington, and Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia; for AARP by David C. Vladeck and Bruce Vignery; for the American Association for Justice by Francine A Hochberg and Kathleen Flynn Peterson; for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Richard Ruda and Steven H. Goldblatt; and for Public Justice, P. C., by Leslie A. Brueckner, David J. Arkush, and Arthur H. Bryant.
Eric G. Lasker, Daniel J. Popeo, and Richard A. Samp filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation as amicus curiae.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Question: What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed?

Choices:
stay, petition, or motion granted
affirmed
reversed
reversed and remanded
vacated and remanded
affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part
affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
vacated
petition denied or appeal dismissed
modify
remand
unusual disposition

Answer: 4