What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded.

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.

Question: What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed?
A. stay, petition, or motion granted
B. affirmed
C. reversed
D. reversed and remanded
E. vacated and remanded
F. affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part
G. affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
H. vacated
I. petition denied or appeal dismissed
J. modify
K. remand
L. unusual disposition
Answer: