The court's action suggests it also will dismiss the second case and step away from the controversy, at least for now. The justices did not act on Trump v. Hawaii, the challenge that it had agreed to review along with Trump v. IRAP last June.
The March 6 decree, opposed by the states of Maryland and Hawaii, was suspended. Though the Court does not explain why it treats these two cases differently, it likely stems from one crucial difference between them. Those questions are likely to return to the court soon, perhaps even this term.
Hawaii is seeking a nationwide order against the ban that removes Sudan from the list of affected countries and adds Chad and North Korea, along with several officials from the government of Venezuela.
The 4th Circuit case was brought by the International Refugee Assistance Project, which argued that banning travel from six majority-Muslim countries violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.
"The 90-day ban on their relatives has now been converted into an indefinite ban with the potential to separate their families, and thousands of others', for years", an attorney for the International Refugee Assitance Project said.
An individual case from the 9 Circuit in California was pending because it includes a ban on refugees worldwide.More news: White House Aide Is Selected to Run Homeland Security Department
The third and latest version of the travel ban is supposed to take full effect 18 October and already has been challenged in the courts.
The cases raise complicated and far-reaching issues about the president's powers, and many legal experts believe the court may not want to jump in unless it is necessary.
The challengers countered that the disputes are not moot and should be returned to the court's calendar for oral argument and an eventual decision on the merits.
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.
Trump furnished a novel command about immigrants last month, and the management had conveyed the court that meant there was no basis for the justices to pass judgment on the old one.
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. It requested the lower court rulings to be deleted. Technically, section 2 (c) of Executive Order No. 13,780 expired on September 24th, though it was replaced with a new travel ban impacting eight different nations.
This post originally appeared at Howe on the Court.