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:
TONASKET v. WASHINGTON et al.
No. 71-1031.
Argued December 12-13,1972
Decided April 24,1973
Robert L. Pirtle argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.
Slade Gorton, Attorney General of Washington, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Timothy R. Malone, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and William D. Dexter, Assistant Attorney General.
Alvin J. Ziontz argued the cause and filed a brief for Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation et al. as amici curiae.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Frizzell, Harry R. Sachse, and Edmund B. Clark for the United States; by Charles A. Hobbs and Richard A. Baenen for the National Congress of American Indians; by David H. Getches for the Native American Rights Fund; and by Pearson, Yurok Indian and Trader on the Hoopa Reservation.
William D. Dexter, Assistant Attorney General of Washington, and Eugene F. Corrigan filed a brief for Multistate Tax Commission as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is vacated, and the case is remanded to that Court for reconsideration in light of §§ 6 and 7 of c. 157, 1972 Extraordinary Session Laws of the State of Washington, and this Court’s decision in McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, ante, p. 164.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0