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:
ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA et al.
No. 8,
Original.
Decided June 3, 1963.
Decree entered March 9, 1964.
Amended Decree entered February 28, 1966.
Mark Wilmer for plaintiff.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Northcutt Ely, Special Assistant Attorney General, Burton J. Gindler and David B. Stanton, Deputy Attorneys General, C. Emerson Duncan II, Jerome C. Muys, Roy H. Mann, Earl Redwine, Harry W. Horton, R. L. Knox, James H. Carter, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., John H. Lauten, H. Kenneth Hutchinson, Roger Arnebergh, Gilmore Tillman, Edward T. Butler, Harvey Dickerson, Attorney General of Nevada, and Robert E. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, for defendants.
Solicitor General Marshall for the United States, intervenor.
Ordered.
The joint motion to amend Article VI of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964, is hereby granted and Article VI of said decree is hereby amended to read as follows:
VI. Within three years from the date of this decree [March 9, 1964], the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada shall furnish to this Court and to the Secretary of the Interior a list of the present perfected rights, with their claimed priority dates, in waters of the mainstream within each State, respectively, in terms of consumptive use, except those relating to federal establishments. Any named party to this proceeding may present its claim of present perfected rights or its opposition to the claims of others. The Secretary of the Interior shall supply similar information, within a similar period of time, with respect to the claims of the United States to present perfected rights within each State. If the parties and the Secretary of the Interior are unable at that time to agree on the present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State, and their priority dates, any party may apply to the Court for the determination of such rights by the Court.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0