Adversary of the ban, who had convinced the two appeals courts to occlude the executive order, stated that the high court should perpetuate to review the cases.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only judge to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, saying she would have preserved the appeal's court ruling against the ban rather than vacating it all together.
Because most of the controversial provisions of the executive order only last 90 days, Trump it could be fully implemented before the Court hears the case. This means that the justices could also dismiss that case, but even if they do, they are probably not done with the issues at the heart of both cases - whether the Trump administration's restrictions on entry into the United States violate the Constitution or exceed the president's authority.
On September 24, President Donald Trump imposed a temporary travel ban on six nations, which affected eight countries.
The Supreme Court Tuesday night dismissed one of the challenges to a now-expired version of President Trump's travel ban, and the legal battle over his latest efforts to ban some immigrants will need to start anew.
At the same time, lower courts also tried to place strict additional limits on the refugee ban. By putting new versions of his ban in place after old versions expire, Trump may be able to roll the dice over and over again until he finds a version that the Court will deem acceptable. It declares the International Refugee Assistance Project case moot - effectively wiping any past decisions in that case from the books - while leaving the Hawaii case on the Court's docket.
The court's order did not mention a second ruling, by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The American Civil Liberties Union also has filed suit over the latest version of the ban. Unlike the earlier bans, it treats some countries and types of travelers, such as students or tourists, differently than others.
Mr. Trump last month revised the six-country travel ban first issued in March.