opinion: MICHIGAN CITIZENS FOR AN INDEPENDENT PRESS et al. v. THORNBURGH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.
  No. 88-1640.
  Argued October 30, 1989
  Decided November 13, 1989
  William B. Schultz argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were David C. Vladeck and Alan B. Morrison.
  Deputy Solicitor General Merrill argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for the federal respondents were Acting Solicitor General Wallace, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Michael R. Lazerwitz, and Douglas Letter. Stephen M. Shapiro, Andrew L. Frey, Kenneth S. Getter, Andrew J. Pincus, Clark M. Clifford, Robert A. Altman, and Robert P. Reznick filed a brief for respondent Detroit Free Press, Inc. John Stuart Smith, Gordon L. Lang, Corrine M. Yu, and Lawrence J. Aldrich filed a brief for respondent Detroit News, Inc.
  Paul L. Friedman, Anne D. Smith, Philip S. Anderson, and Peter G. Kumpe filed a brief for Little Rock Newspapers, Inc., as amicus curiae urging reversal.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Detroit Renaissance, Inc., et al. by Herschel P. Fink, Richard E. Zuckerman, and David B. Jaffe; for Newspaper Drivers & Handlers, Teamsters Local No. 372, et al. by Gerry M. Miller; for Union Leaders representing Detroit Free Press employees by Bruce A. Miller; and for Jane Daugherty et al. by Barbara Harvey.
  Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Newspaper Publishers Association by P. Cameron DeVore, Marshall J. Nelson, and W. Terry Maguire; for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Robert M. Weinberg, Walter Kamiat, and Laurence Gold; and for James Blanchard et al. by Richard C. Van Dusen.
  Per Curiam.
  The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
  Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the type of decision made by the court among the following: Consider "opinion of the court (orally argued)" if the court decided the case by a signed opinion and the case was orally argued. For the 1791-1945 terms, the case need not be orally argued, but a justice must be listed as delivering the opinion of the Court. Consider "per curiam (no oral argument)" if the court decided the case with an opinion but without hearing oral arguments. For the 1791-1945 terms, the Court (or reporter) need not use the term "per curiam" but rather "The Court [said],""By the Court," or "By direction of the Court." Consider "decrees" in the infrequent type of decisions where the justices will typically appoint a special master to take testimony and render a report, the bulk of which generally becomes the Court's decision. This type of decision usually arises under the Court's original jurisdiction and involves state boundary disputes. Consider "equally divided vote" for cases decided by an equally divided vote, for example when a justice fails to participate in a case or when the Court has a vacancy. Consider "per curiam (orally argued)" if no individual justice's name appears as author of the Court's opinion and the case was orally argued. Consider "judgment of the Court (orally argued)" for formally decided cases (decided the case by a signed opinion) where less than a majority of the participating justices agree with the opinion produced by the justice assigned to write the Court's opinion.