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.
Appellant organizations brought this suit for injunc-tive and declaratory relief against investigations which appellees, members of the Kentucky Un-American Activities Committee, were allegedly threatening to conduct. They contended that the investigations and accompanying contempt prosecutions would violate various rights, primarily those under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They did not allege that any of their officers or members had been called as witnesses, or that any subpoenas had been issued, or that any criminal prosecutions had been begun. The allegations of harassment were entirely conclusory. Appellees moved to dismiss, and appellants failed to respond, as was required by local court rules. These rules also stated that “[fjailure to respond may be good grounds for sustaining the motion.” D. C. W. D. Ky. Rule 5 (a). We hold that in this procedural context the trial court could take appellants’ conclusory allegations as insubstantial and could dismiss the complaint for failure to allege sufficient irreparable injury to justify federal intervention at this early stage. For this reason, the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.

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

Answer: A