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:
WHITE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF TEXAS, et al. v. REGESTER et al.
No. 73-1462.
Argued February 19, 1975 —
Decided June 30, 1975
Elizabeth B. Levatino, Special Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were John L. Hill, Attorney General, Larry F. York, former First Assistant Attorney General, and David M. Kendall, First Assistant Attorney General.
David R. Richards argued the cause for appellees Regester et al. With him on the brief were Jack Green-berg, James M. Nabrit III, J. Phillip Crawford, Oscar H. Mauzy, Wm. Terry Bray, Sanford Jay Rosen, and George J. Korbel. Don Gladden argued the cause for appellees Escalante et al. With him on the briefs was Marvin Collins.
Per Curiam.
We are informed that the State of Texas has adopted new apportionment legislation providing single-member districts to replace the multimember districts which are at issue before us in this case. That statute by its terms does not become effective until the 1976 elections, and intervening special elections to fill vacancies, if any, will be held in the districts involved as constituted on January 1, 1975. Rather than render an unnecessary judgment on the validity of the constitutional views expressed by the District Court in this case, which we do not undertake to do at this time, we vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case to that court for reconsideration in light of the recent Texas reapportionment legislation and for dismissal if the case is or becomes moot.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas 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: 1