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:
PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CITY TRUSTS OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.
No. 769.
Decided April 29, 1957.
Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, and Lois O. Forer, Deputy Attorney General, for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Abraham L. Freedman and David Berger for the City of Philadelphia et al., and William T. Coleman, Jr., Raymond Pace Alexander and Louis Poliak for Foust et al., appellants.
Owen B. Rhoads for appellee.
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction is granted. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 2103, the petition is granted. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (3).
Stephen Girard, by a will probated in 1831, left a fund in trust for the erection, maintenance, and operation of a “college.” The will provided that the college was to admit “as many poor white male orphans, between the ages of six and ten years, as the said income shall be adequate to maintain.” The will named as trustee the City of Philadelphia. The provisions of the will were carried out by the State and City and the college was opened in 1848. Since 1869, by virtue of an act of the Pennsylvania Legislature, the trust has been administered and the college operated by the “Board of Directors of City Trusts of the City of Philadelphia.” Pa. Laws 1869, No. 1258, p. 1276; Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann., 1957, Tit. 53, § 16365.
In February 1954, the petitioners Foust and Felder applied for admission to the college. They met all qualifications except that they were Negroes. For this reason the Board refused to admit them. They petitioned the Orphans’ Court of Philadelphia County for an order directing the Board to admit them, alleging that their exclusion because of race violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The State of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia joined in the suit also contending the Board’s action violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Orphans’ Court rejected the constitutional contention and refused to order the applicants’ admission. 4 D. & C. 2d 671 (Orph. Ct. Philadelphia). This was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 386 Pa. 548, 127 A. 2d 287.
The Board which operates Girard College is an agency of the State of Pennsylvania. Therefore, even though the Board was acting as a trustee, its refusal to admit Foust and Felder to the college because they were Negroes was discrimination by the State. Such discrimination is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0