opinion: MICHIGAN CITIZENS FOR AN INDEPENDENT PRESS et al. v. THORNBURGH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.
  No. 88-1640.
  Argued October 30, 1989
  Decided November 13, 1989
  William B. Schultz argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were David C. Vladeck and Alan B. Morrison.
  Deputy Solicitor General Merrill argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for the federal respondents were Acting Solicitor General Wallace, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Michael R. Lazerwitz, and Douglas Letter. Stephen M. Shapiro, Andrew L. Frey, Kenneth S. Getter, Andrew J. Pincus, Clark M. Clifford, Robert A. Altman, and Robert P. Reznick filed a brief for respondent Detroit Free Press, Inc. John Stuart Smith, Gordon L. Lang, Corrine M. Yu, and Lawrence J. Aldrich filed a brief for respondent Detroit News, Inc.
  Paul L. Friedman, Anne D. Smith, Philip S. Anderson, and Peter G. Kumpe filed a brief for Little Rock Newspapers, Inc., as amicus curiae urging reversal.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Detroit Renaissance, Inc., et al. by Herschel P. Fink, Richard E. Zuckerman, and David B. Jaffe; for Newspaper Drivers & Handlers, Teamsters Local No. 372, et al. by Gerry M. Miller; for Union Leaders representing Detroit Free Press employees by Bruce A. Miller; and for Jane Daugherty et al. by Barbara Harvey.
  Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Newspaper Publishers Association by P. Cameron DeVore, Marshall J. Nelson, and W. Terry Maguire; for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Robert M. Weinberg, Walter Kamiat, and Laurence Gold; and for James Blanchard et al. by Richard C. Van Dusen.
  Per Curiam.
  The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
  Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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.