opinion: SMITH et al. v. FLORIDA
  No. 70-5055.
  Argued December 8, 1971
  Decided February 24, 1972
  Douglas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Justices joined, except Powell and Rehnquist, JJ., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
  Phillip A. Hubbart argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.
  Nelson E. Bailey, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, argued the cause for respondent pro hac vice. With him on the brief was Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General.
  Mr. Justice Douglas
  delivered the opinion of the Court.
  Florida’s vagrancy statute includes in the term “vagrants,” who can be criminally charged and convicted, “persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object.” The defendants were so charged and pleaded not guilty, waived trial by jury, and were tried by a judge, who denied a motion to dismiss. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, two judges dissenting. 239 So. 2d 250. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. 403 U. S. 917.
  We have this day decided Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, ante, p. 156. We therefore vacate and remand the judgment in the instant case for reconsideration in light of Papachristou.
  So ordered.
  Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
  Fla. Stat. §856.02 (1965). See Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, decided this day, ante, at 157 n. 2.
  § 856.02.
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.