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:
WILLIAMS, TREASURER OF OKLAHOMA, et al. v. MOSS et al.
No. 476.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Charles Nesbitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for appellants in No. 476.
Frank Carter for appellants in No. 534.
Jim A. Rinehart for appellants in No. 546.
Sid White for appellee Moss in No. 476.
Norman E. Reynolds, Jr., pro se, appellee in Nos. 476 and 534.
Delmer L. Stagner and LeRoy Powers for Council of Democratic Neighborhood Clubs in Nos. 476 and 534.
Together with No. 534, Oklahoma Farm Bureau et al. v. Moss et al., and No. 546, Baldwin et al. v. Moss, both also on appeal from the same court.
Per Curiam.
The judgment below is affirmed on the merits. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The cases are remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds, should that become necessary.
Mr. Justice Clark would affirm on the merits on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587.
Mr. Justice Stewart would affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that Oklahoma’s system of legislative apportionment violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0