The Supreme Court apparently believes that allowing one version of the ban to expire and replacing it with a different version of the ban is enough to moot the case. Though the order explicitly states that the Court expresses "no view on the merits" of the case, it is not good news for opponents of the ban.
The justices did not say what they will do with another challenge lodged by Hawaii, which came up through the 9th Circuit, and which covered a broader set of objections than the 4th Circuit case.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed the ban on majority-Muslim countries.
The pending appeal by the government challenged a US 4 Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.More news: Ivanka Could Run For President In 15 Years, Says Ivana Trump
The Hawaii case also challenged a provision of the order that suspended the admission of refugees into the United States for 120 days.
The ban's challengers argued that the case against the last version should go forward because numerous same travelers and their families are adversely affected - not just for 90 days, but indefinitely.
The ban's challengers also argued that the case against the last version should go forward because numerous same travelers in the initial band are being targeted by the new ban, which has an indefinite time frame. The court may then also vacate that ruling.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the court's order, saying she would have instead just sent the case back to the lower appeals court to be continued. Succeeding the habitual practice in such cases, The judgment is therefore abdicated and the case is adjourned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with directives to disperse as moot the provocation. It asked the lower court rulings be erased. But unlike the previous ban, the restrictions vary from place to place, and countries that increase their cooperation and information-sharing with the United States might be able to find their way off the list. Attorneys in both Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. IRAP have sought to amend their original complaints (here and here) to challenge the new proclamation, while another group - the Council on American-Islamic Relations - has filed its own challenge.