opinion: DECKER, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE, et al. v. HARPER & ROW PUBLISHERS, INC., et al.
  No. 113.
  Argued December 16, 1970
  Decided January 12, 1971
  Lee A. Freeman, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Lee A. Freeman, William J. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois, and John P. Meyer, Special Assistant Attorney General, Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Attorney General of West Virginia, and Gene Hal Williams, Deputy Attorney General, Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana, and. Wendell C. Hamachér, Assistant Attorney General, Crawford C.Martin, Attorney General of Texas, and Wayne R. Rodgers, Assistant Attorney General, Paul W. Brown, Attorney General of Ohio, and Dongld Weckstein and Ted B. Clevenger, Assistant Attorneys General, Douglas M. Head, Attorney General of Minnesota, and Eric Miller, Assistant Attorney General, .Robert W. Warren, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and George F. Sieker and Theodore L. Priebe, Assistant Attorneys General, Kent Frizzel, Attorney General of Kansas, and J. Eugene Balloun, Special Assistant Attorney General, Richard L. Curry, David J. Young, Charles E. Griffith III, and Robert E. Kendrick.
  H. Temple.ton Brown argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Robert L. Stern, Lee N. Abrams, W. Donald McSweeney, Earl E; Pollock, Peter Gruénberger, Conrad W. Oberdorfer, Earl A. Jinkinson, Edgar E. Barton, Leo Rosen, Roger.Hunting, and Samuel Weisbard.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by David T. Searls, Harry M. Reasoner, Ray D. Henson, and John C. Bartlett for the American Bar Association et al.; by Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General, and Anthony F. Troy and T. J. Markow, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Commonwealth of Virginia; and by Samuel W. Murphy, Jr., and George S. Leisure, Jr., for the Association of the Bar of the City of New York et al. Edward S. Irons and Mary Helen Sears, pro sése, filed a brief as amici curiae.
  Per Curiam.
  The judgment is-affirmed by an equally divided Court.
  Mr. Justice Douglas 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 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.