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:
ADAY et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 149.
Decided June 12, 1967.
Stanley Fleishman for petitioners.
Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
Melvin L. Wulj, Rolland R. O’Hare and Erwin B. Ellmann for the American Civil Liberties Union et al., and Horace S. Manges for the American Book Publishers Council, Inc., as amici curiae, in support of the petition.
Charles H. Keating, Jr., and James J. Clancy for Citizens for Decent Literature, Inc., as amicus curiae, in opposition to the petition.
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Brennan would grant the petition, vacate the judgment, and remand in light of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413.
Mr. Justice Clark would grant the petition and affirm.
Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the reversal on the basis of the reasoning set forth in his opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S. 478.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0