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:
BLACK et al. v. AMEN et al.
No. 13.
Argued November 12-13, 1957.
Decided March 3, 1958.
Dean Acheson argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Stanley L. Temko, Scott W. Lucas and Malcolm Miller.
Douglas F. Smith argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Arthur R. Seder, Jr., D. Arthur Walker, Jack 0. Brown and Oliver H. Hughes.
Per Curiam.
Petitioners' amended motion, concurred in by the attorneys for respondents, is granted. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to remand the cause to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enable the parties to file their joint motion for the entry of judgment dismissing the action, as provided in paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement dated February 27, 1958, a copy of which is annexed to the amended motion.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter desires to have it added that he assumes that the legal effect of the Court’s order, in which he joins, upon the opinion and judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case is the conventional one when a case has become moot here pending our decision on the merits. United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U. S. 36, 39.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0