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.

Opinion:
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION et al. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
No. 80-1690.
Argued January 11, 1982
Decided March 23, 1982
Newton N. Minow argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Jack R. Bierig, David W. Carpenter, William J. Doyle, and Linda L. Randell.
Howard E. Shapiro argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Baxter, Deputy Solicitor General Shapiro, Elliott Schulder, March Coleman, and L. Barry Costilo
Peter M. Sfikas filed a brief for the American Dental Association as amicus curiae urging reversal.
A brief for the’ State of Ohio et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance was. filed by William J. Brown, Attorney General of Ohio, and Eugene F. McShane, Charles.D. Weller, and Clifton E. Johnson, Assistant Attorneys General; Robert K. Corbin, Attorney General of Arizona; J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General of Colorado, and Thomas P. McMahon, Assistant Attorney General; Carl R. Ajello, Attorney General of Connecticut, and Robert M. Larger and John R. Lacey, Assistant Attorneys General; Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, and John R. Perkins, Assistant Attorney General; Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General of Maryland, and Charles 0. Monk II and Naomi F. Samet, Assistant Attorneys General; Warren Spannaus, Attorney General of Minnesota, and Stephen P. Kilgrijf, Special Assistant Attorney General; Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General of Nebraska, and Dale A. Comer, Assistant Attorney General; JejfBingaman, Attorney General of New Mexico, and James J. Wechsler and Richard H. Levin, Assistant Attorneys General; Robert Abrams, Attorney General of New York, and Lloyd Constantine, Assistant Attorney General; Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General of North Carolina, H. A. Cole, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, and Fred R. Gamin, Assistant Attorney General; Leroy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Carl S. Hisiro, Deputy Attorney General; Dennis J. Roberts II, Attorney General of Rhode Island, and Patrick J. Quinlan, Special Assistant Attorney General; and Chauncey H. Browning, Attorney General of West Virginia, and Charles G. Brown, Deputy Attorney General.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Question: Did administrative action occur in the context of the case?

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 1