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:
FLORES-VILLAR v. UNITED STATES
No. 09-5801.
Argued November 10, 2010
Decided June 13, 2011
Steven F. Hubachek, by appointment of the Court, 559 U. S. 1105, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Elizabeth M. Barros and Vincent J. Brunkow.
Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Katyal, Assistant Attorneys General West and Breuer, Sarah E. Harrington, Donald E. Keener, Carol Federighi, Robert N Markle, and William C. Brown.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Sandra S. Park, Steven R. Shnpiro, T.enma M. Lapidus, Lee Gelernt, Lucas Guttentag, Jennifer Chang Newell, and David Blair Loy; for Equality Now et al. by Martha F. Davis; for the National Immigrant Justice Center et al. by Brian J. Murray, Charles Roth, and Stephen W. Manning; for the National Women’s Law Center et al. by Deanne E. Maynard, Brian R. Matsui, Seth M. Galanter, Marcia D. Croenberger, and Dina R. Lrnsow; for Profceoors of History ot al. by Lorclie S. Masters and Lindsay C. Harrison; and for Scholars on Statelessness by Max Gitter.
Michael M. Hethmon filed a brief for the Immigration Reform Law Institute as amicus curiae.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Kagan
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