opinion: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al. v. WILLIAMS, REVENUE COMMISSIONER.
  No. 783.
  Decided June 1, 1959.
  Robert L. Carter, Frank-D. Reeves and A. T. Walden for petitioners.
  Eugene Cook, Attorney General of Georgia, Robert H. Hall, Assistant Attorney General, and E. Freeman Leverett, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
  Per Curiam.
  The motion to substitute Dixon Oxford in.the place of T. V. Williams as the party respondent is granted. The State represents to us that no fine against petitioner has been finally determined and assessed: Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied, leaving petitioner free to' take further proceedings here when the judgment below becomes final or the jurisdiction of this Court may otherwise be appropriately invoked.
  Mr. Justice Douglas.
  With some doubts I bow to the conclusion that this judgment is not final within the meaning of the jurisdictional statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1257. It ordered thé petitioner to “produce all its books, records and other data bearing on said corporation’s income, disbursements and expenses prepared or used by said corporation in die conduct of its-'business during said taxable years wherever said business was transacted, whether within’ or without this state (except such as may be otherwise theretofore produced’ hereunder) . . .■ within thirty-five days . . . [and] that said corporation forthwith pay Into the registry of the Clerk of this Court a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars, to be hereafter assessed and apportioned remedially and punitively, as shall appear just and appropriate to the Court, the Court reserving jurisdiction, after the production of the books, records and data hereby ordered, to reduce the amount of said fine if such should be-just under the circumstances then existing.”
  By the terms of this judgment, the Georgia court reserves the power to réduce the amount of the fine. One question tendered by the petitioner would turn on the amount of the fine. It is the issue of “cruel and unusual punishments” which is outlawed by the Eighth Amendment that is in turn made applicable to the States by thé Fourteenth, Francis v. Resweber, 329 U. S. 459, 463. That .is a subsidiary question and one that the State contends is not properly here because, it is said, no such assignment of error was included in the bill of exceptions.
  The central issue in the case has nothing to do with the amount of the fine. It seems that the order to produce the records and the citation for contempt followed each other in a matter of a few hours. The basic question is whether holding petitioner in eontempt and imposing any fine comported with that due process required of every government under our Bill of Rights. Were that question here alone,. I would- think the judgment was final. But since the issue of “cruel and unusual punishment” is also tendered and since a reduction of the fine may eliminate it from the case, I acquiesce in the denial of certiorari’ at this stage of the proceedings.
instruction: 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.