The court had originally planned to hear two cases challenging the order on October 10, but cancelled arguments after Trump issued new, targeted restrictions on travel from eight countries - Chad, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court quashed the appeal decision on the Maryland ruling, with the suspension in Hawaii still valid but its days likely numbered.
But the new travel ban and the Supreme Court's order vacating the 4th Circuit appeals court judgment puts the administration in a somewhat stronger position, at least for now.
Under its original schedule, the court would have heard the case Tuesday, but had delayed oral argument after Trump replaced his earlier order.
The Hawaii case similarly challenged section 2 (c) - but it also challenged the provisions of the ban dealing with refugees. Litigants wishing to challenge the latest version of the travel ban will now need to start afresh with a new lawsuit.
The Supreme Court discharged one of the challenges to a recently lapsed category of President Trump's travel ban and the legitimate battle over its latest efforts to forbid some immigrants will require starting afresh.
"Explaining that the freeze on the entry of travelers from the six countries "'expired by its own terms' on September 24" and therefore "no longer presents a live case or controversy", the court agreed with the federal government that the 4th Circuit's ruling for the challengers should be vacated.
The International Refugee Assistance Project pushed the court to hear the case.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the court's action. The new version followed a three-month review of immigration procedures.
"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. Sudan, which was covered by the previous ban, was removed from the list. In a somewhat confusing order, the Court held that "foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" will not be subject to the ban while the Court takes more time to reach a final decision on how to resolve the case.