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:
SMITH et al. v. FLORIDA
No. 70-5055.
Argued December 8, 1971
Decided February 24, 1972
Douglas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Justices joined, except Powell and Rehnquist, JJ., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Phillip A. Hubbart argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.
Nelson E. Bailey, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, argued the cause for respondent pro hac vice. With him on the brief was Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Florida’s vagrancy statute includes in the term “vagrants,” who can be criminally charged and convicted, “persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object.” The defendants were so charged and pleaded not guilty, waived trial by jury, and were tried by a judge, who denied a motion to dismiss. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, two judges dissenting. 239 So. 2d 250. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. 403 U. S. 917.
We have this day decided Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, ante, p. 156. We therefore vacate and remand the judgment in the instant case for reconsideration in light of Papachristou.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Fla. Stat. §856.02 (1965). See Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, decided this day, ante, at 157 n. 2.
§ 856.02.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0