CLOSE Skip in Skip x Embed x Share The State Department and a lawyer for the Justice Department are providing contradicting numbers on how many visas have been revoked since President Trump's travel order. USA TODAY NETWORK 
 
 Trailed by reporters, Hossein Vayghan, center, heads to see his brother Ali Vayeghan as his daughter Marjan K. Vayghan, follows closely behind at Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles on Feb. 2, 2017. Vayeghan, who had been turned away from the airport under President Trump's executive order barring immigrants from seven Muslim-majority nations, returned Thursday to an emotional welcome from family members. (Photo: Ed Crisostomo, AP) 
 
 The State Department said Friday fewer than 60,000 visas were revoked in the week since President Trump suspended travel arrivals for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries. 
 
 The figure contradicted a Justice Department lawyer, who said in U.S. District Court on Friday that 100,000 visas were revoked, according to news reports from CNN and The Washington Post. 
 
 The department clarified that the higher figure used by the Justice Department lawyer included diplomatic and other visas that were exempted by the travel ban, as well as expired visas. 
 
 The revocation number was revealed Friday in a court case in Virginia involving two Yemeni brothers denied entry when they arrived at Virginia's Dulles International Airport following Trump’s Jan. 27 order. The executive action barred travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Attorneys general from several states, including Hawaii, Massachusetts, Washington and New York have challenged the order. 
 
 Later, Friday, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Washington state issued a nationwide restraining order blocking the travel ban. In issuing his decision, Robart was siding with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who argued the order is causing significant harm to residents and effectively mandates discrimination. Minnesota joined the suit. 
 
 Before the clarification in the Virginia case, Justice Department lawyer Erez Reuveni told Judge Leonie Brinkema that 100,000 visas had been rejected, according to CNN and the Post. Visas are temporary permits to enter the U.S. Reuveni said no legal permanent residents, or green-card holders, have been denied entry. 
 
 “The number 100,000 sucked the air out of my lungs,” Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg of the Legal Aid Justice Center told The Washington Post. 
 
 Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, when asked about the case during his daily briefing, said he had no information about it. 
 
 Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked the secretaries of State and Homeland Security to provide details by Feb. 10 about how visa revocations and how many travelers have been denied entry. 
 
 “The executive order has caused widespread confusion and created uncertainty for countless refugees, asylum seekers, and others who currently possess or were approved for visas," Leahy wrote to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. "This uncertainty threatens to put men, women, and children fleeing war, violence, and persecution at risk of death and injury." 
 
 Attorneys general in 16 states and the District of Columbia issued a statement condemning Trump's order. The states are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. 
 
 “As the chief legal officers for over 130 million Americans and foreign residents of our states, we condemn President Trump’s unconstitutional, un-American and unlawful executive order and will work together to ensure the federal government obeys the Constitution, respects our history as a nation of immigrants, and does not unlawfully target anyone because of their national origin or faith," the statement said. 
 
 Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, who won approval from the court on Friday to participate in the case, said he would argue at a hearing Feb. 10 for an injunction against Trump’s order. Brinkema ordered the government to provide all the names of Virginia residents denied entry or removed because of the order, Herring said. 
 
 Eric Ferrero, spokesman for Amnesty International USA, urged Congress to revoke the travel order "before it tears even more families apart." 
 
 "President Trump’s cruel and unlawful Muslim ban is causing widespread harm, and that’s why there’s a growing public backlash against it," Ferrero said. 
 
 Administration officials have said the 90-day pause in arrivals from those countries is necessary to review and perhaps tighten the visa vetting process. But the order sparked protests at airports across the country and opposition from corporate leaders who said it would hurt their businesses. 
 
 The State Department last year issued more than 600,000 immigrant visas last year, including visas for 7,727 to Iranians, 3,660 to Iraqis, 383 to Libyans, 1,797 to Somalians, 2,606 to Sudanese, 2,633 to Syrians and 12,998 to Yemenis. 
 
 Those visas were the subject of a lawsuit filed Saturday by two Iraqis who were initially denied entry at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. District Court Judge Ann Donnelly temporarily blocked the order in that case, pending a full hearing. 
 
 The State Department also granted nearly 11 million non-immigrant visas in 2015, the most recent year available, including visas for 29,007 Iranians, 11,399 Iraqis, 1,613 Libyans, 219 Somalians, 4,354 Sudanese, 9,003 Syrians and 3,787 Yemenis. 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2k4sW92 ||||| (Reuters) - U.S. judges in at least five states blocked federal authorities from enforcing President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. 
 
 However, lawyers representing people covered by the order said some authorities were unwilling on Sunday to follow the judges’ rulings. 
 
 Judges in California, Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington state, each home to international airports, issued their rulings after a similar order was issued on Saturday night by U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York’s Brooklyn borough. 
 
 Donnelly had ruled in a lawsuit by two men from Iraq being held at John F. Kennedy International Airport. 
 
 While none of the rulings struck down Friday’s executive order by the new Republican president, the growing number of them could complicate the administration’s effort to enforce it. 
 
 The rulings add to questions about the constitutionality of the order, said Andrew Pincus, a Mayer Brown partner representing two Yemeni men who were denied U.S. entry from an overseas flight despite being legal permanent residents. 
 
 “People have gone through processes to obtain legal permanent resident status, or visas,” Pincus said. “There are serious questions about whether those rights, which were created by statute, can be unilaterally taken away without process.” 
 
 Trump’s order halted travel by people with passports from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and stopped the resettlement of refugees for 120 days. 
 
 He said these actions were needed “to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” 
 
 The order sparked a global backlash, including from U.S. allies that view the actions as discriminatory and divisive. 
 
 Attorneys general from California, New York, 13 other states and Washington, D.C., meanwhile, in a statement condemned and pledged to fight what they called Trump’s “dangerous” and “unconstitutional” order. 
 
 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Sunday said it “will comply with judicial orders,” while enforcing Trump’s order in a manner that ensures those entering the United States “do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.” 
 
 SAFE, NOT SORRY 
 
 Striking that balance has caused confusion, according to lawyers who worked overnight and on Sunday to help travelers at JFK Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport in northern Virginia, and elsewhere. 
 
 Activists gather at the US Capitol to protest President Donald Trump's executive actions on immigration in Washington January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein 
 
 Immigration lawyer Sharifa Abbasi said some Border Patrol agents at Dulles refused to let lawyers talk with detainees, even after being shown an order from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema requiring such access. 
 
 Abbasi said the agents instead told the lawyers to call their agency’s office, where no one was answering. 
 
 “There is really no method to this madness,” Becca Heller, director of the New York-based International Refugee Assistance Project organization, told reporters on a conference call. 
 
 Supporters of Trump’s order said authorities acted properly in swiftly taking steps to enforce it. 
 
 “It is better (to) be safe than sorry,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies in Washington. 
 
 Lawsuits on behalf of more than 100 individual travelers have been filed nationwide, activists and lawyers estimated. 
 
 Some have come from large corporate firms including Mayer Brown, Kirkland & Ellis, and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton. 
 
 CURBS ON TRUMP’S ORDER 
 
 In Boston, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs on Sunday temporarily blocked the removal of two Iranians who have taught at the University of Massachusetts, and had been detained at the city’s Logan International Airport. 
 
 Burroughs’ ruling appeared to go further than Donnelly’s by barring the detention, as well as the removal, of approved refugees, visa holders and permanent U.S. residents entering from the seven countries. Donnelly’s order forbade only removal. 
 
 Matthew Segal, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, in a statement called Burroughs’ ruling “a huge victory for justice” in the face of what he called Trump’s “unconstitutional ban on Muslims.” 
 
 The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Trump’s order sought to prioritize refugees fleeing religious persecution, which the president said was aimed at helping Christians in Syria. 
 
 Burroughs’ ruling also prompted some Trump critics to urge holders of green cards, which allow foreign nationals to live and work permanently in the United States, to fly into Boston, to lessen the risk of detainment. 
 
 White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said several times on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Trump’s order does not affect green card holders “moving forward” or “going forward.” 
 
 Slideshow (7 Images) 
 
 In a ruling on Sunday, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles directed the return to the United States of Ali Khoshbakhti Vayeghan, who authorities had sent back to his native Iran following Trump’s order. 
 
 The ruling from Brinkema, in Alexandria, Virginia, barred the Homeland Security agency from removing an estimated 50 to 60 legal permanent residents who had been detained at Dulles. 
 
 In Seattle, U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly barred the government from removing two people, who were not named in court papers. He scheduled a Feb. 3 hearing on whether to lift that stay. ||||| Does the travel ban affect you, your friends or loved ones? We want to hear your stories. Tag #CNNiReport on social or use WhatsApp +44 7435 939 154 to share stories. 
 
 (CNN) A federal judge in New York blocked part of President Donald Trump's controversial executive order on immigration Saturday, ruling that authorities could not remove individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries who had arrived in US airports after the order had been issued. The White House, however, maintained Sunday that the ruling does not undercut the executive order 
 
 US Judge Ann M. Donnelly held that the petitioners had a "strong likelihood of success" in establishing that their removal "violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution." 
 
 Donnelly, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, sits on the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. 
 
 A White House spokesperson defended the order Sunday, saying: "It is the right and duty of the President to do everything in his legal and constitutional power to protect the American people." 
 
 "Saturday's ruling does not undercut the President's executive order. All stopped visas will remain stopped. All halted admissions will remain halted. All restricted travel will remain prohibited. The executive order is a vital action toward strengthening America's borders, and therefore sovereignty. The order remains in place," the spokesperson said. 
 
 The court's ruling came after immigration lawyers at the Americans Civil Liberties Union and other groups flocked to airports across the country to come to the aide of individuals who had arrived with valid immigrant visas and found themselves in legal limbo. The lawyers asked for a nationwide stay that would block the deportation of all people stranded in US airports under what the group called "President Trump's new Muslim ban." 
 
 READ MORE: 
 
 Donnelly granted their request, writing: "There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January 27, 2017, Executive Order." 
 
 Trump's order, titled "Protection Of The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," makes good on his longtime campaign promise to tighten borders and halt certain refugees from entering the United States. 
 
 As well as the ban on travel from seven named countries for 90 days, it also caps the total number of refugees admitted into the United States during the 2017 fiscal year at 50,000, down more than half from the current level of 110,000. It halts all refugees from Syria indefinitely. 
 
 "I am establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America," Trump said during the signing at the Pentagon. "We don't want them here." 
 
 As Donnelly was considering the case, lawyers around the country rushed to file legal briefs. 
 
 Early Sunday morning, a federal court in Massachusetts also issued a temporary restraining order, blocking part of the executive order in a case brought by lawyers for two lawful permanent residents who are college professors. That order, issued by United States District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs, also an Obama appointee, went a step further ordering that the government could not "detain or remove" individuals who had arrived legally from the countries subject to Trump's order: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. 
 
 Burroughs said that her order applied to the petitioners in the case as well as those similarly situated including lawful permanent residents, citizens, visa-holders, approved refugees, and other individuals from nations who are subject to the January 27, 2017, executive order. The order was also signed by United States Magistrate Judge Gail Dein. The judges specified that the order would remain in effect for seven days while the court scheduled a hearing. 
 
 Lawsuit success 
 
 The United States denied entry to 109 travelers heading to the country at the time the ruling was signed, a Department of Homeland Security official said. The agency would not say how many of the 109 were sent already home and how many were detained. 
 
 The ruling does not necessarily mean the people being held at airports across the US are going to be released, said Zachary Manfredi, from Yale's Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, who helped draft the emergency stay motion. 
 
 JUST WATCHED Trump: Travel ban working out very nicely Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump: Travel ban working out very nicely 01:07 
 
 "The judge's order is that they (lawful visa/green card holders) not be removed from the US -- it doesn't immediately order that they be released from detention," he told CNN. 
 
 "We are hoping that (Customs and Border Patrol), now that they no longer have a reason to detain them, will release them. But it is also possible they could be transferred to (other) detention facilities," Manfredi said. 
 
 "We are getting the order to as many (Customs and Border Patrol) officers as possible right now," he added. 
 
 ACLU officials praised the judge's ruling. 
 
 Trump's immigration order: Which countries are affected? Iran 
 
 Iraq 
 
 Syria 
 
 Sudan 
 
 Libya 
 
 Yemen 
 
 Somalia 
 
 "Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this country," said ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero. "Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court." 
 
 Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, who argued the case, said the ruling "preserves the status quo and ensures that people who have been granted permission to be in this country are not illegally removed off US soil." 
 
 Lawsuit is first challenge to executive order 
 
 The class-action lawsuit in New York is the first legal challenge to Trump's controversial executive order, which indefinitely suspends admissions for Syrian refugees and limits the flow of other refugees into the United States by instituting what the President has called "extreme vetting" of immigrants. 
 
 The two Iraqis, Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkaleq Alshawi, had been released by Saturday night. But lawyers for other detained travelers said in a court filing that "dozens and dozens" of individuals remained held at JFK. 
 
 JUST WATCHED Former adviser defends Trump's immigration ban Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Former adviser defends Trump's immigration ban 03:53 
 
 Similar legal actions were initiated in other states before the ruling in New York took effect. 
 
 A federal court in Washington state issued a stay forbidding travelers being detained there from being sent back to their home country. 
 
 A federal court in Virginia has issued a temporary restraining order saying several dozen permanent residents returning from trips abroad should have access to lawyers while they are being detained at Dulles International Airport and these residents cannot be removed from the United States for seven days. 
 
 'America is the land of freedom' 
 
 According to court papers, both Darweesh and Alshawi were legally allowed to come into the US but were detained in accordance with Trump's order. 
 
 Darweesh, who worked as an interpreter for the US during the Iraq War, was released from detention early Saturday afternoon. 
 
 "America is the land of freedom," he told reporters at the airport shortly after his release. "America is the greatest nation." 
 
 A source with knowledge of the case confirmed Darweesh will be allowed into the US due to provisions in Trump's order that allow the State and Homeland Security departments to admit individuals into the US on a case-by-case base for certain reasons, including when the person is already in transit and it would cause undue hardship and would not pose a threat to the security of the US. 
 
 The suit said Darweesh held a special immigrant visa, which he was granted the day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, due to his work for the US government from 2003 to 2013. 
 
 Alshawi was released Saturday night, according to his attorney, Mark Doss. 
 
 Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-New York, who had arrived at JFK by early Saturday afternoon to try and secure the release of the two Iraqis, railed against Trump's order and pledged continued action. 
 
 JUST WATCHED Wife separated from husband after Trump's ban Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Wife separated from husband after Trump's ban 03:11 
 
 "This should not happen in America," Velazquez said following Darweesh's release. "One-by-one, street-by-street, if we have to go to court, we will fight this anyplace, anywhere." 
 
 'The executive order is unlawful' 
 
 The lawsuit said the US granted Alshawi a visa earlier this month to meet with his wife and son, whom the US already granted refugee status for her association with the US military. 
 
 The lawyers for the two men called for a hearing because they maintain the detention of people with valid visas is illegal. 
 
 "Because the executive order is unlawful as applied to petitioners, their continued detention based solely on the executive order violates their Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights," the lawyers argue in court papers. 
 
 Court papers said Customs and Border Patrol authorities did not allow the lawyers to meet with the men, and told them to try reaching Trump. Velázquez and fellow New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler said they attempted to speak to Darweesh and Alshawi at JFK's Terminal 4 earlier Saturday but were denied. 
 
 "When Mr. Darweesh's attorneys approached CBP requesting to speak with Mr. Darweesh, CBP indicated that they were not the ones to talk to about seeing their client. When the attorneys asked, 'Who is the person to talk to?' the CBP agents responded, 'Mr. President. Call Mr. Trump,' " the court papers read. 
 
 Doss, an attorney with the International Refugee Assistance Project, told CNN his clients knew they had to get to the US as soon as possible so they boarded the first flight they could. 
 
 The two men had been allowed to make phone calls. They do not know each other, and it is unclear if they were held together or separately, or if they were kept in a holding cell, according to Doss. 
 
 The lawsuit was earlier reported by The New York Times. 
 
 Legality questioned 
 
 But the order immediately raised questions about its legal standing. 
 
 "What this order does is take people who played by the rules who have been rigorously vetted and slams the door of the country in their face because of their religion," said David Leopold, an immigration attorney and the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. 
 
 But Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School, said Trump's order may have merit. 
 
 "The plaintiffs are alleging a variety of reasons why they should not be detained under the executive order. Their arguments include the equal protection clause of the Constitution and a provision in the immigration law that prohibits national origin discrimination," Yale-Loehr said. "However, presidents have wide discretion on immigration, because immigration touches national sovereignty and foreign relations. Courts tend to defer to whatever a president declares on immigration. I think the administration could win." 
 
 An administration official told CNN if a person has a valid visa to enter the US but is a citizen of one of the seven countries under the temporary travel ban, then the person cannot come into the US. If the person landed after the order was signed Friday afternoon, then the person would be detained and put back on a flight to their country of citizenship. 
 
 Separately, Department of Homeland Security officials acknowledged people who were in the air would be detained upon arrival and put back on a plane to their home country. An official was not able to provide numbers of how many have already been detained. 
 
 Progressives outraged 
 
 Democrats and liberal-leaning groups continued to denounce Trump's order Saturday as racist. 
 
 "The first two refugees kept out of America by President Trump's order are Iraqis who helped US troops survive during the war," Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tennessee, said on Twitter. "These men risked their lives for years to keep our troops safe. One was with the 101st Airborne. This is no way to treat our allies." 
 
 The first two refugees kept out of America by President Trump's order are Iraqis who helped US troops survive during the war. — Jim Cooper (@repjimcooper) January 28, 2017 
 
 These men risked their lives for years to keep our troops safe. One was with the 101st Airborne. This is no way to treat our allies. — Jim Cooper (@repjimcooper) January 28, 2017 
 
 Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders called the action an "anti-Muslim order" that "plays into the hands of fanatics wishing to harm America." 
 
 Trump's anti-Muslim order plays into the hands of fanatics wishing to harm America. Love and compassion trump hatred and intolerance. https://t.co/hUzvqqqd9H — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 28, 2017 
 
 And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called on the Trump administration to "rescind these anti-American executive actions that will do absolutely nothing to improve our safety." 
 
 Travelers turned away 
 
 Sarah Assali from Allentown, Pennsylvania, told CNN Saturday that the US government stopped six of her Syrian family members at Philadelphia International Airport and sent them back to Doha, Qatar, the origin city of their flight. 
 
 Assali said her family members were persecuted Christians and did not speak very good English, so they did not fully understand why they were being put on a plane back to the Middle East. 
 
 Additionally, some US-bound travelers who were either refugees or from countries specified in Trump's executive ban have been turned back from Cairo International Airport, according to a Cairo airport official who is not authorized to speak to the media. 
 
 The official said they were required to follow the instructions of the United States in the matter. He said "(The airport personnel) have no choice but to follow orders. I don't want to blame anyone here." 
 
 CNN's Kevin Bohn, Ryan Nobels, Ellie Kaufman, Patricia Pedraza, Sheena Jones, Mohammed Tawfeeq, Rachel Crane, Chris Welch and Sarah Jorgensen contributed to this report.
– US District Court Judge Ann Donnelly issued an injunction barring the government from deporting anyone during an emergency hearing Saturday night in Brooklyn, and her court was not the only one to do so. Reuters reports that judges in three additional states—Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington state—have since followed suit. Reuters points out that these legal moves are curbs that do not eradicate President Trump's executive order that severely limits immigration, but observes "the growing number ... could complicate the administration's effort to enforce it." The former is exactly what an unnamed senior White House official pointed out, reportedly telling NBC's Kelly O'Donnell such rulings do "not undercut the President's executive order." The official continues, "All stopped visas will remain stopped. All halted admissions will remain halted. All restricted travel will remain prohibited. ... The order remains in place." But the pressure shows no sign of easing: The AP reports that the attorneys general of 15 states and the District of Columbia will issue a joint statement branding Trump's ban as unconstitutional and at odds with "a bedrock principle" of the US: religious liberty. The states: Washington, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Virginia, Oregon, Connecticut, Vermont, Illinois, New Mexico, Iowa, Maine, and Maryland. What Trump had to say Sunday morning on Twitter: "Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world - a horrible mess!"