Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge District Court setting aside and annulling a decision and order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. United States, 397 F. Supp. 607 (WD Ky. 1975).
In 1973, the railroads in southern territory, which lies south of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi, proposed new tariffs changing the method of calculating the through rates on vegetable oil, cake or meal, and related articles, which were subject to transit privileges at various points where animal, fish, and poultry feed using these ingredients was made and transshipped. Certain large feed manufacturers protested. The Commission found that the net effect of the new tariffs would be to increase the through rates on the articles involved and that the railroads had “not presented probative evidence in justification” of the new tariffs. Based on the testimony and evidence presented by the protestante the Commission found “strong support on this record for concluding that these shippers will divert a considerable portion of their feed traffic, from railroad to trucks, with the establishment of the proposed rule.” The result, the Commission found, would be “a net loss of revenue to the [railroads] despite the assessment of the higher rates and charges and thus will be self-defeating.” The Commission concluded that the railroads had not met their burden of proof that the proposed tariffs were just and reasonable under § 15 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 384, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §15(7), and required that the railroads cancel the schedule. 346 I. C. C. 579, 587-588 (1973).
The District Court set aside and annulled the Commission order for want of substantial evidence to support it. The District Court considered the shippers’ evidence mere conjecture and self-serving and could not accept the Commission’s conclusion that the railroads would lose revenue from the new tariffs. It also thought it “un-controverted” that “the railroads have incurred a loss of revenue from the transportation of meal,” and therefore “clearly established that if there should be a diversion of meal traffic as predicted by the shippers, the carriers would actually be in a better financial position than at present.” 397 F. Supp., at 610.
We reverse the judgment of the District Court. Con-cededly, there was detailed evidence with respect to the anticipated traffic diversion which the Commission credited and thought strongly supported its conclusion. The District Court exceeded its function in reweighing the testimony, which is primarily the task of the Commission. Alton R. Co. v. United States, 315 U. S. 15, 23-24 (1942); Illinois C. R. Co. v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 385 U. S. 57, 69 (1966). On the record before it, the District Court also erred in differing with the Commission and agreeing with the railroads with respect to the impact of the new tariffs on railroad revenue. The court relied on evidence which showed only that under the old rates the railroads sustained a loss on feed outbound from the transit points and which, as a railroad witness testified, Comm’n Tr. 28-29, did not relate to the net gain or loss on inbound meal shipments or on the through movement when both legs were considered together.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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