Task: sc_adminaction_is

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether administrative action occurred in the context of the case prior to the onset of litigation. The activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. To determine whether administration action occurred in the context of the case, consider the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations.

Per Curiam.
The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted.
In each of these cases, the trial court denied a timely motion to quash the petit jury panel. On appeal, the convictions were affirmed on the basis of State v. Duren, 556 S. W. 2d 11 (Mo. 1977). State v. Lee, 556 S. W. 2d 25 (Mo. 1977) ; State v. Minor, 556 S. W. 2d 35 (Mo. 1977); State v. Arrington, 559 S. W. 2d 749 (Mo. 1978); State v. Burnfin, 560 S. W. 2d 283 (Mo. App. 1977); State v. Combs, 564 S. W. 2d 328 (Mo. App. 1978).
We reversed the decision below in Duren because of inconsistency with the principles enunciated in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522 (1975). Ante, p. 357. The State of Missouri has urged that our decision in Duren not be applied retroactively to petitioners or appellants other than Duren himself. However, because that decision does not announce any “new standards” of constitutional law not evident from the decision in Taylor v. Louisiana, the considerations that have led us in other cases to depart from full retroactive application of constitutional holdings, see, e. g., Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 297 (1967), are inapplicable to juries sworn after the decision in Taylor v. Louisiana. Compare Daniel v. Louisiana, 420 U. S. 31 (1975), holding Taylor v. Louisiana inapplicable to cases in which the jury was sworn prior to the date of that decision.
We note that in any case in which a jury was sworn subsequent to Taylor v. Louisiana and the fair-cross-section claim based on exclusion of. women was rejected on direct review or in state collateral proceedings because of the defendant’s failure to assert the claim in timely fashion, relief is unavailable under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 unless the petitioner can show cause for having failed to raise his claim properly in the state courts. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977).
The petitions for certiorari in Nos. 77-6066, 77-6068, 77-6701, and 77-7012 are granted. The judgments below in those cases, together with that in No. 77-6553, are vacated, and the cases are remanded for reconsideration in light of Duren v. Missouri, ante, p. 357.
So ordered.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Powell concurring in the judgments, see ante, p. 460.]
Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissents.

Question: Did administrative action occur in the context of the case?
A. No
B. Yes
Answer:

Answer: A