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:
No. 253.
United States v. Pullman Company et al.; Otis & Co. v. United States et al.; Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al.; and Glore, Forgan & Co. v. United States et al.
No. 254.
No. 255.
No. 256.
Argued March 11, 12, 13, 1947.
Decided March 31, 1947.
Holmes Baldridge argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Washington and Assistant Attorney General Berge. Thurman Arnold argued the cause for appellant in No. 254. With him on the brief was Arne C. Wiprud. Robert J. Bulkley argued the cause for appellants in No. 255. With him on the brief were Frank J. Meistrell and Herbert G. Pillen. Leo F. Tierney argued the cause for appellant in No. 256. With him on the brief was Louis A. Kohn. George Wharton Pepper argued the cause for the Pullman Company et al., appellees. With him on the brief were Ralph M. Shaw, Seth W. Richardson, Lowell M. Greenlaw, Frederick H. Spotts and Guy A. Gladson. Jacob Aronson argued the cause for the railroad appellees. With him on the brief were Emmett E. Mclnnis, Sydney R. Prince, Harold H. McLean, Henry L. Walker and Albert Ward. Appearances were entered by Francis H. Scheetz for appellant in No. 256; John Dickinson for the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al.; and Leo J. Hassenauer, V. C. Shuttle-worth and H. E. Wilmarth for the Order of Railway Conductors of America, appellees.
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0