opinion: UNITED STATES et al. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA et al.
  No. 94-1893.
  Argued December 6, 1995
  Decided February 27, 1996
  Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. With him on the briefs for petitioners in No. 94-1898 were Solicitor General Days, Acting Assistant Attorney General Phillips, Paul R. Q. Wolf son, Douglas N. Letter, Mark B. Stern, Bruce G. Forrest, William E. Kennard, and Christopher J. Wright. H. Bartow Farr III, Richard G. Taranto, Daniel L. Brenner, Neal M. Goldberg, and David L. Nicoll filed briefs for petitioner in No. 94-1900.
  Laurence H. Tribe argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With him on the brief were Jonathan S. Massey, Peter J. Rubin, Mark L. Evans, Kenneth W. Starr, Paul T. Cappuccio, James R. Young, John Thorne, and Michael E. Glover.
  Together with No. 94-1900, National Cable Television Assn., Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Corp. et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the California Cable Television Association by Bruce D. Sokler and Frank W. Lloyd III; and for the Consumer Federation of America et al. by Gigi B. Sohn and Andrew Jay Schwartzman.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Burt Neuborne and Steven R. Shapiro; for BellSouth Corp. by Walter H. Alford, John F. Beasley, William Barfield, and Roger M. Flynt, Jr.; for East Ascension Telephone Co. by Richard A. Epstein; for GTE Corp. by M. Edward Whelan III, John F. Raposa, and Richard A. Cordray; for Mets Fans United/Virginia Consumers for Cable Choice et al. by Samuel A. Simon; for the United States Telephone Association et al. by Michael W. McConnell and Kenneth S. Getter; and for U S West, Inc., by Lloyd N. Cutler, Louis R. Cohen, William T. Lake, and Stuart S. Gunckel.
  Per Curiam.
  The judgment is vacated and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for consideration of the question whether they are moot.
instruction: 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.