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:
PRESSLER, MEMBER, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES v. BLUMENTHAL, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, et al.
No. 76-1005.
Decided May 16, 1977
Per Curiam.
The motion of We the People for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted. The motion of James W. Jeffords, et al., for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted.
Appellant challenges the operation of certain provisions of the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, 2 U. S. C. §§ 351-361, and of the 1975 Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, 2 U. S. C. § 31 (1970 ed., Supp. V), relating to increases in salaries paid members of Congress. He asserts that the operation of these Acts violates Art. I, § 1, and § 6, cl. 1 (the Ascertainment Clause), of the Constitution.
On April 4, 1977, Congress passed an amendment to the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act. On April 12, the President signed that amendment into law. Pub. L. 95-19, 91 Stat. 45.
It appearing that the amendment to the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act will alter materially the scope and perhaps the nature of appellant's suit, the judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in the light of the new legislation.
It is so ordered.
Me. Justice Stevens would affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0