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:
DOW CHEMICAL CO. et al. v. STEPHENSON et al.
No. 02-271.
Argued February 26, 2003
Decided June 9, 2003
Seth P. Waxman argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Louis R. Cohen, Andrew L. Frey, Philip Allen Lacovara, Charles A. Rothfeld, Rickard B. Katslcee, Michele L. Odorizzi, Steven Brock, and John C. Sabetta.
Gerson H. Smoger argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Mark R. Cuker and Ronald Simon.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Insurance Association et al. by Herbert M. Wachtell, Jeffrey M. Wintrier, Craig A Berrington, Lynda S. Mounts, Jan S. Amundson, Quentin Rie-gel, and Robin S. Conrad; for the Product Liability Advisory Council by John H. Beisner; and for the Washington Legal Foundation by Daniel J. Popeo and Rickard A Samp.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Louisiana et al. by Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General of Louisiana, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Mike Beebe of Arkansas, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Mike Hatch of Minnesota, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, and Mike McGrath of Montana; for the American Legion et al. by William A Rossbach and P. B. Onderdonk, Jr.; for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by Jeffrey Robert White; for Law Professors by David L. Shapiro, John Leubsdorf, and Henry P. Monaghan; for the Lymphoma Foundation of America et al. by Raphael Metzger; for Public Citizen by Brian Wolfman; and for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice by Brent M. Rosenthal, Leslie Brueckner, and Misty A Farris.
Patrick Lysaught filed a brief for the Defense Research Institute as amicus curiae.
Per Curiam.
With respect to respondents Joe Isaacson and Phyllis Lisa Isaacson, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U. S. 28 (2002).
With respect to respondents Daniel Raymond Stephenson, Susan Stephenson, Daniel Anthony Stephenson, and Emily Elizabeth Stephenson, the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Stevens 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