opinion: FRI, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY v. SIERRA CLUB et al.
  No. 72-804.
  Argued April 18, 1973
  Decided June 11, 1973
  Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Frizzell, Harriet S. Shapiro, Edmund B. Clark, and Martin Green.
  Bruce J. Terris argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Helen C. Needham, Nathalie Vayssie Black, and James W. Moorman.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Mark Wilmer, Rex E. Lee, Gary K. Nelson, Attorney General, J. A. Hughes, John Conway, William Duncan, Gordon Pearce, Richard G. Campbell, Lawrence V. Robertson, Jr., and Donald E. Dickerman for the State of Arizona and Ten Named Public Utilities; by Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General, and C. Tabor Cronk, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth of Virginia; by Milton A. Smith and Stanley W. Schroeder for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States; by Cameron F. MacRae, G. S. Peter Bergen, and Henry V. Nickel for the Edison Electric Institute; and by Edward A. McCabe, Laurence P. Sherfy, and David W. Miller for the American Mining Congress.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, pro se, Robert H. O’Brien, Assistant Attorney General, and Nicholas C. Yost, Anthony M. Summers, and C. Foster Knight, Deputy Attorneys General, for the Attorney General of California; by William J. Scott, Attorney General, Fred F. Herzog, First Assistant Attorney General, and Harvey M. Sheldon, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Illinois; by Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Jerome Maslowski, Stewart H. Freeman, and Charles S. Alpert, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of Michigan, joined by Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, and Curtis D. Forslund, Solicitor General, for the State of Minnesota; by Louis J. Lejkowitz, Attorney General, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Philip Weinberg and James P. Corcoran, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of New York; by John L. Hill, Attorney General, Larry F. York, First Assistant Attorney General, and Mike Willatt, Phil Maxwell, and Troy C. Webb, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of Texas; by David L. Norvell, Attorney General, for the State of New Mexico, joined by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: William J. Baxley of Alabama, Robert Killian of Connecticut, Robert L. Shevin of Florida, Vern Miller of Kansas, William J. Guste, Jr., of Louisiana, Jon A. Lund of Maine, Robert H. Quinn of Massachusetts, Louis J. Lejkowitz of New York, Robert Morgan of North Carolina, William J. Brown of Ohio, Lee L. Johnson of Oregon, Israel Packel of Pennsylvania, Kermit A. Sande of South Dakota, John L. Hill of Texas, and Kimberley B. Cheney of Vermont; by Norman Redlich for the cities of New York and Boston; by Aljred S. Forsyth for the Association of the Bar of the city of New York; by David H. Getches for the Jicarilla Apache Tribe of Indians et ah; and by Neal A. Jackson, and James F. Bromley for Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.
  Per Curiam.
  The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
  Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the decision of this case.
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