The justices did not drop the pending travel ban cases altogether, but removed them from the court's oral argument calendar while both sides file new briefs on the impact of the new directive. | Getty Images Supreme Court cancels oral arguments on Trump travel ban

The Supreme Court has canceled oral arguments that were set for next month on President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order.

The high court announced Monday afternoon that it has scrubbed the Oct. 10 session after Trump issued a new set of travel restrictions Sunday, as his earlier visa ban on six majority Muslim countries was set to expire.


Trump's new proclamation targets five of the same countries and three new ones and imposes a varied set of travel restrictions.

The justices did not drop the pending travel ban cases altogether, but removed them from the court's oral argument calendar while both sides file new briefs on the impact of the new directive.

However, the Supreme Court's new order seems to be a signal that at least some justices are eager to get rid of the pending cases without deciding them on the merits.

"I think it’s quite clear that they have very little appetite to reach the merits of the March executive order if they don’t have to, and Sunday’s developments likely mean that they don’t have to," said University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck.

Trump's March order banning travel to the United States by citizens of six majority Muslim countries revised an earlier, broader executive order. Both were met with fierce protests by people who said the orders were attempts to implement Trump's campaign-trail promise to completely bar Muslims from entering the United States. The Supreme Court let the March order stand but required exemptions for people with close U.S. ties.

The court on Monday asked the litigants to file new briefs by Oct. 5 addressing whether Trump's new policy renders "moot" the disputes over the travel ban order Trump issued in March. The justices also asked the parties to discuss the global refugee halt Trump ordered, which is set to expire Oct. 24, and whether the scheduled end of that policy also means the high court should drop the matter.

Even if the justices agree to punt on the broader questions raised by the travel ban, the trickier question may be what to do with precedent-setting rulings from a panel of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit and from the full bench of the Richmond-based 4th Circuit declaring Trump's March version of his travel ban order illegal.

The 4th Circuit decision was particularly sweeping, holding that Trump's campaign-trail rhetoric promising a "Muslim ban" led to the conclusion that his travel ban policy was influenced by religious bias that rendered the measure unconstitutional.

Some judges and legal scholars have expressed concern about the courts relying on campaign statements to discern a public official's intent.

The Trump administration formally notified the Supreme Court Sunday night about the president's new policy, which imposes indefinite travel restrictions on citizens of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.

Sudan was dropped from the previous list of countries subject to the visa ban.

Six of the eight countries on the new list are majority-Muslim. Critics have described the addition of North Korea and Venezuela as a transparent effort to counter arguments of religious bias. North Koreans get only about 100 visas a year. The restrictions on Venezuela don't apply to the general public, but only those affiliated with certain government agencies.