opinion: Per Curiam.
  On February 1, 1942, pursuant to the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, as amended, the Attorney. General of the United States interned petitioner, a German citizen residing in this country. On May 3, 1946, acting under the same statute, the Attorney General directed petitioner’s removal to Germany. Thereafter, petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and on October 9, 1950, after hearings, the District Court denied relief. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, 187 F. 2d 912, and petitioner applied to this Court for. a writ of certiorari on August 24, 1951.
  While that petition was under consideration by the Court, a joint resolution of Congress, approved on October 19, 1951, terminated the state of war which had existed between the United States and Germany. 65 Stat. 451. We granted certiorari. 342 U. S. 864.(1951).
  The statutory power óf the Attorney General to remove petitioner as an enemy alien ended when Congress terminated the war with Germany. Thus petitioner is no longer removable under the Alien Enemy Act.
  The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate its júdgment and direct petitioner’s release from custody.
  It is so ordered.
  Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case.
  “Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any. foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.” 1 Stat. 577, as amended, 50 U. S. C. § 21.
  The Attorney General acted under Presidential Proclamation No. 2526, 6 Fed. Reg. 6323, and Presidential Proclamation No. 2655, 10 Fed. Reg. 8947.
  “Resolved by the Senate and House of. Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Germany by the joint resolution of Congress approved December 11, 1941, is hereby terminated and such termination shall take effect on the date of enactment of this resolution: Provided, however, That notwithstanding this resolution and any proclamation issued by the President pursuant thereto, any property or interest which prior to. January 1, 1947, was subject to vesting or seizure under the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 411), as amended, or which has heretofore been vested or. seized under that Act, including accruals to or proceeds of any such property or interest, shall continue to be subject to the provisions oí that Act in the same manner and to the same- extent as if this resolution had not been adopted and such proclamation had not been issued.. Nothing herein and nothing in such proclamation shall alter the status, as it existed immediately prior hereto, under that Act, of Germany, or of any person .with respect to any such property or interest.” H. J. Res. 289, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 65 Stat. 451.
instruction: 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