The case concerns Trump's third bid to make good on a campaign promise to secure the nation's borders.
The executive order was challenged in court and revised twice to remove Iraq from the list and allow some exceptions.
In September six immigrants filed [JURIST report] a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website], challenging the administration's decision to end DACA by arguing that the Trump administration did not follow proper administrative procedure.
The order granting review did not specify when the case would be scheduled for a hearing before the Justices, but the government has suggested that the hearing should be held in April - the last scheduled set of hearings of the Court's current term.
The restrictions vary in their details, but for the most part, citizens of the countries are forbidden from immigrating to the United States, and many of them are barred from working, studying or vacationing here.
"We are confident the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the president's lawful and necessary action to keep the American people safe and enforce these important security standards for entry into the United States", said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman.
"An objective observer would still conclude that EO-3's goal is the fulfillment of the president's unconstitutional promise to enact a Muslim ban", Hawaii told the justices, referencing one of Trump's campaign promises.
Hawaii, represented by Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal, countered, "No prior president has attempted to implement a policy that so baldly exceeds the statutory limits on the President's power to exclude, or so nakedly violates Congress's bar on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas". The high court, however, has allowed most of the program to take effect. The move effectively overturned a compromise in place since June, when the court said travelers with connections to the United States could continue to travel here notwithstanding restrictions in an earlier version of the ban. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. The ban also affects two non-Muslim countries, North Korea and Venezuela.
On January 16, the Department of Justice announced that it had appealed the judge's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
In his brief, Francisco wrote that the president has vast constitutional and statutory authority over immigration. The government contends the immigration order is the result of a multi-federal agency review of whether foreign governments provide sufficient information to screen their nationals.