Trump's first travel ban was issued nearly a year ago, nearly immediately after he took office, and was aimed at seven countries.
Lower courts have ruled parts of the policy illegal - and some of those courts have said 's campaign rhetoric and comments as president show he has "animus" toward Muslims.
In June, the Supreme Court allowed that version of the policy to take partial effect.
The case is v. Hawaii.
"We have always known this case would ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court", said Attorney General Doug Chin.
The decision to hear the case, Trump v. Hawaii, came nearly a year after the first travel ban, issued a week after Trump took office, caused chaos at the nation's airports and was promptly blocked by courts around the nation.
A case concerning the legality of a previous version of the ban was on the Court's calendar for earlier in the term but the justices removed it after the President issued this version of the travel ban in September.
The justices briefly grappled in June with the second version of the travel ban. The court put that order on hold, however, in deference to the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department's move to go directly to the Supreme Court is unusual because the administration is essentially seeking to circumvent the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously ruled against it over Trump's temporary travel bans on people entering the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries. The new version continues "the same unlawful policy" that was struck down by lower courts a year ago, lawyer Neal Katyal said in his brief on behalf of the challengers.
On the day the September order became public, the challengers added, "the president made clear that it was the harsher version of the travel ban, telling reporters, 'The travel ban: the tougher, the better'".
That move suggested the court's conservatives were exasperated by liberal trial judges issuing sweeping nationwide orders that rejected the president's plan. She suggested that it was by threatening to withhold grants and "conscripting" city police to enforce federal laws.
The third version is permanent, unlike the other two, and the administration said it is the product of a thorough review by several agencies of how other countries' screen their own citizens and share information with the U.S.
The appeals court based its ruling on immigration statutes, not the Constitution's prohibition of religious discrimination.