opinion: ARCENEAUX v. LOUISIANA.
  No. 76.
  Argued January 15, 1964.
  Decided March 9, 1964.
  J. Minos Simon argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
  Bertrand De Blanc argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Jack P. F. Oremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, and M. E. Culligan, Assistant Attorney General.
  Per Curiam.
  Petitioner, who was before the state court “on a charge of vagrancy,” raised several objections to a denial of a preliminary hearing. The third of these reads as follows:
  “. . . that the bill of information charges no offense known to law and if it charges an offense within the meaning and intentment [sic] of a Louisiana statute, then both the statute and the bill of information are unconstitutional, null, and void, as being violative of the guaranties contained in the United States Constitution and of the Louisiana Constitution and Laws; . . .”
  Louisiana Rev. Stat. § 15:154 provides that “after an indictment found or an information filed, it shall be wholly within the discretion of the district court, and not subject to review by any other court, to order or to refuse to order a preliminary examination; . . .”
  Petitioner, when he asked for a preliminary hearing, was incarcerated and charged by affidavit with the offense of vagrancy. Neither an indictment nor a bill of information had been filed against him. In that state of the proceedings the motion for a preliminary examination was granted and a hearing set for March 8, 1962, and then continued to March 9. On March 9 the District Attorney filed an information charging the accused with the crime of vagrancy. Thereupon, the district judge recalled his order for a preliminary examination.
  Petitioner appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, asking for a writ of habeas corpus and alternatively for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition. In that application the remedies of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition were sought alternatively for denial of a preliminary examination and for having to stand trial under the Vagrancy Act.
  In that application the petitioner said:
  “The bill of information charged no criminal offense, and if it did set forth an alleged offense in the language of a statute, then such statute and the bill of information are unconstitutional, null and void, being violative of both Federal and State Constitutions.”
  In the prayer for relief contained in the application he asked in the alternative that the Court rule “upon the constitutionality” of the vagrancy statute and whether it and other Louisiana statutes and constitutional provisions cited “are contrary to and violative of the provisions of the United States Constitution, and in particular the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments thereto.”
  Thus when petitioner sought review of the denial of a preliminary hearing, he tried to raise the question of the constitutionality of the vagrancy statute.
  The Supreme Court denied the writs on March 16, 1962, paying “Writ refused. There is no error of law in the ruling complained of.” The petition for certiorari to this Court was filed March 31, 1962. Two months later, i. e., May 31, 1962, petitioner appeared in the Lafayette city court (to which the case had been transferred by the District Court) and pleaded guilty to the charge of vagrancy. He was then sentenced to serve four months in jail, but given credit for the time served and forthwith discharged. We granted certiorari, 372 U. S. 906, and the case has been argued.
  In Louisiana it seems that, with exceptions not relevant here, only orders which finally dispose of criminal cases can be appealed. See La. Rev. Stat. §15:540. “A case is finally disposed of by any judgment which dismisses the prosecution, whether before or after verdict, that grants or refuses to grant a new trial, that arrests or refuses to arrest judgment, or that imposes sentence.” La. Rev. Stat. § 15:541.
  The “ruling complained of” as referred to by the Louisiana Supreme Court can only be the order recalling the order for a preliminary hearing. Under our decisions in the criminal field, such denial of intermediate relief in state criminal cases is similar to an order overruling a plea in bar (Eastman v. Ohio, 299 U. S. 505) or overruling a demurrer to an indictment (Polakow’s Realty Experts v. Alabama, 319 U. S. 750). Hence under 28 U. S. C. § 1257, denial of the preliminary hearing in a vagrancy case of this character is not a “final” judgment. We therefore dismiss the writ for lack of jurisdiction, without any intimation as to what rights, if any, petitioner may have under the Civil Rights Acts.
  The statute challenged, La. Rev. Stat. § 14:107 (1962 Cum. Supp.), provides:
  “The following persons are and shall be guilty of vagrancy:
  “(8) Persons found in or near any structure, movable, vessel, or private grounds, without being able to account for their lawful presence therein; . . . .”
  We do not concern ourselves with the state law aspects of habeas corpus, which is, after all, only an alternative form of relief that was sought.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.