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:
BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. et al. v. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD et al.
No. 97.
Argued March 27, 1963.
Decided May 20, 1963
Robert W. Oinnane, Jervis Langdon, Jr., and William L. Marbury argued the cause for appellants. With Mr. Ginnane on the briefs for the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellant in No. 99, was I. K. Hay. With Mr. Langdon on the briefs for appellants in No. 97 were Richard R. Bongarts, Robert B. Claytor, John W. Hanifin, John Henry Lewin and William C. Purnell. With Mr. Marbury on the briefs for appellants in No. 98 were Chas. R. Seal, J. Cookman Boyd, Jr., Donald Macleay, John Martin Jones, Jr., Morris Duane, Warren Price, Jr., William C. Burt and Robert M. Beckman.
J. William Doolittle, Thomas E. Dewey and Robert G. Bleakney, Jr. argued the cause for appellees. On the brief for the Boston &'Maine Railroad et al. were Robert G. Bleakney, Jr., Hénry E. Foley and Neal Holland. On the brief for the United States were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney-General Loevinger, Stephen J. Poliak, Robert B. Hummel, Irwin A. Seibel and John H. D. Wigger. On the brief for the New York Central Railroad Company et al. were Thomas E. Dewey, Everett I. Willis and Leo B. Connelly. On the brief for the State of New York et al. were Louis J. Lejkowitz, Attorney-General of New York, Paxton Blair, Solicitor General, Dunton F. Tynan, Assistant Solicitor General, Sidney Goldstein, Leo A. Larkin, F. A. Mulhern, Morris Handel, Samuel Mandell, Charles W. Merritt, Walter J. Myskow-ski, Arthur L. Winn, Jr. and Samuel H. Moerman.
Together with. No. 98, Maryland Port Authority et al. v. Boston & Maine Railroad et al., and No. 99, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Boston & Maine Railroad et al., also on appeals from the same Court.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Choices:
Conservative
Liberal
Unspeciﬁable

Answer: 2