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:
CALHOUN et al. v. LATIMER et al.
No. 623.
Argued March 31, 1964.
Decided May 25, 1964.
Constance Baker Motley argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the brief were Jack Greenberg, E. E. Moore, Donald L. Hollowell and A. T. Walden.
A. C. Latimer argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Neiuell Edenfield.
Assistant Attorney General Marshall, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Cox, Louis F. Claiborne, Harold H. Greene and Howard A. Glickstein.
Eugene Cook, Attorney General of Georgia, Alfred L. Evans, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and E. Freeman Leverett, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of Georgia, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.
Per Curiam.
During the argument of this case, counsel for respondents stated that after the decree below was entered the Atlanta Board of Education adopted additional provisions authorizing free transfers with certain limitations in the city’s high schools. At our invitation both parties filed supplemental memoranda dealing with this aspect of the case. It appears therefrom that since the argument the Atlanta Board of Education on April 8, 1964, adopted and promulgated a new formal resolution stating the present policy of the Board and the factors it will consider in making initial assignments of pupils and in permitting transfers for the school year 1964-1965. Petitioners deny that this resolution meets the constitutional standards and assert that with respect to students in the elementary schools the plan will not achieve desegregation until sometime in the 1970’s.
In light of the developments at and since the argument, we deem it appropriate that the nature and effect of the Board’s resolution of April 8, 1964, be appraised by the District Court in a proper evidentiary hearing. To this end we vacate the judgment and remand the cause to the District Court for further proceedings.
Although Atlanta’s commendable effort to effect desegregation is recognized, the District Court on remand must, of course, test the entire Atlanta plan by the considerations discussed in Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526, 529; Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 683; and Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, ante, at 218, decided subsequent to the District Court’s approval of the plan. In Goss, supra, at 689, we said:
“[W]e are not unmindful of the deep-rooted problems involved. Indeed, it was consideration for the multifarious local difficulties and ‘variety of obstacles’ which might arise in this transition that led this Court eight years ago to frame its mandate in Brown in such language as ‘good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date’ and ‘all deliberate speed.’ Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S., at 300, 301. Now, however, eight years after this decree was rendered and over nine years after the first Brown decision, the context in which we must interpret and apply this language to plans for desegregation has been significantly altered. Compare Watson v. City of Memphis, supra.”
Vacated and remanded.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0