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:
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al. v. FELZEN et al.
No. 97-1732.
Argued January 11, 1999
Decided January 20, 1999
Michael K. Kellogg argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Mark C. Hansen, Neil M. Gor-such, and Sean A. Lev.
David C. Frederick argued the cause for the United States et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Harvey J. Goldschmid, David M. Becker, Paul Gonson, Jacob H. Stillman, and Eric Summergrad.
John G. Kester argued the cause for respondents and filed a brief for respondent Archer Daniels Midland Co. With him on the brief was George A. Borden. Thom W. Moss filed a brief for respondent Directors of Archer Daniels Midland Co. Terry Rose Saunders, Robert M. Roseman, and Henry P. Monaghan filed a brief for respondent Paul Felzen et al.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Barclays Global Investors, N. A., et al. by Andrew N. Vollmer, Andrew B. Weissman, and Joseph A. Grundfest; for the Council of Institutional Investors by Carter G. Phillips, Bradford A. Berenson, and David W. Jones; and for Public Citizen, Inc., et al. by Leslie Brueclcner, Brian Wolfman, and Alan B. Morrison.
Daniel J. Popeo filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Leonard N. Sosnov filed a brief for Lawrence A. Hamermesh et al. as amici curiae.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0