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:
UNITED STATES, Petitioner
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION.
No. 17-2.
Supreme Court of the United States
April 17, 2018.
Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, John P. Cronan, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Morgan L. Goodspeed, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Ross B. Goldman, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Bradford L. Smith, David M. Howard, Julie Brill, John Frank, Jonathan Palmer, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, James M. Garland, Alexander A. Berengaut, Lauren K. Moxley, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Robert M. Loeb, Brian P. Goldman, Evan M. Rose, Hannah Garden-Monheit, Alec Schierenbeck, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The Court granted certiorari in this case to decide whether, when the Government has obtained a warrant under 18 U.S.C. § 2703, a U.S. provider of e-mail services must disclose to the Government electronic communications within its control even if the provider stores the communications abroad. 583 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 356, 199 L.Ed.2d 261 (2017).
In December 2013, federal law enforcement agents applied to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for a § 2703 warrant requiring Microsoft to disclose all e-mails and other information associated with the account of one of its customers. Satisfied that the agents had demonstrated probable cause to believe that the account was being used to further illegal drug trafficking, a Magistrate Judge issued the requested § 2703 warrant. App. 22-26. The warrant directed Microsoft to disclose to the Government the contents of a specified e-mail account and all other records or information associated with the account "[t]o the extent that the information ... is within [Microsoft's] possession, custody, or control." Id., at 24.
After service of the § 2703 warrant, Microsoft determined that the account's e-mail contents were stored in a sole location: Microsoft's datacenter in Dublin, Ireland. Id., at 34. Microsoft moved to quash the warrant with respect to the information stored in Ireland. The Magistrate Judge denied Microsoft's motion. In re Warrant To Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 15 F.Supp.3d 466 (S.D.N.Y.2014). The District Court, after a hearing, adopted the Magistrate Judge's reasoning and affirmed his ruling. See In re Warrant To Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197, 204-205 (C.A.2 2016). Soon after, acting on a stipulation submitted jointly by the parties, the District Court held Microsoft in civil contempt for refusing to comply fully with the warrant. Id., at 205. On appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the denial of the motion to quash and vacated the civil contempt finding, holding that requiring Microsoft to disclose the electronic communications in question would be an unauthorized extraterritorial application of § 2703. Id., at 222.
The parties now advise us that on March 23, 2018, Congress enacted and the President signed into law the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act), as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. 115-141. The CLOUD Act amends the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., by adding the following provision:
"A [service provider] shall comply with the obligations of this chapter to preserve, backup, or disclose the contents of a wire or electronic communication and any record or other information pertaining to a customer or subscriber within such provider's possession, custody, or control, regardless of whether such communication, record, or other information is located within or outside of the United States." CLOUD Act § 103(a)(1).
Soon thereafter, the Government obtained, pursuant to the new law, a new § 2703 warrant covering the information requested in the § 2703 warrant at issue in this case.
No live dispute remains between the parties over the issue with respect to which certiorari was granted. See Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. Galioto, 477 U.S. 556, 559, 106 S.Ct. 2683, 91 L.Ed.2d 459 (1986). Further, the parties agree that the new warrant has replaced the original warrant. This case, therefore, has become moot. Following the Court's established practice in such cases, the judgment on review is accordingly vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions first to vacate the District Court's contempt finding and its denial of Microsoft's motion to quash, then to direct the District Court to dismiss the case as moot.
It is so ordered.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0