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:
INDIANA STATE POLICE PENSION TRUST et al. v. CHRYSLER LLC et al.
No. 08A1096.
Decided June 9, 2009
Together with No. 08A1099 (08-1513), Center for Auto Safety et al. v. Chrysler LLC et al., and No. 08A1100, Pascale v. Chrysler LLC et al., also on applications for stay.
Per Curiam.
The applications for stay presented to Justice Ginsburg and by her referred to the Court are denied. The temporary stay entered by Justice Ginsburg on June 8, 2009, is vacated.
A denial of a stay is not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal issues. In determining whether to grant a stay, we consider instead whether the applicant has demonstrated “(1) a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari or to note probable jurisdiction; (2) a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous; and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.” Conkright v. Frommert, post, at 1402 (Ginsburg, J., in chambers) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). In addition, “in a close case it may be appropriate to balance the equities,” to assess the relative harms to the parties, “as well as the interests of the public at large.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted).
“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, ante, at 433 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion, and the “party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Ante, at 433-434. The applicants have not carried that burden.
“[T]he propriety of [a stay] is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case,” and the “traditional stay factors contemplate individualized judgments in each case.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). Our assessment of the stay factors here is based on the record and proceedings in these cases alone.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0