Associated Press, CBC

Article from AP:

Washington state's attorney general declared Monday that he was suing President Donald Trump over his temporary ban on immigration from seven countries with majority-Muslim populations, making it the first state to announce a legal action against the Trump administration over one of its policies.

Trump's executive order also suspended the United States' entire refugee program and set off nationwide protests over the weekend, including one that drew 3,000 people to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

"If successful it would have the effect of invalidating the president's unlawful action nationwide," Attorney General Bob Ferguson said at a news conference.

Ferguson was one of 16 state attorneys general who released a statement Sunday calling Trump's immigration action "un-American and unlawful."

Trump has repeatedly said Friday's order suspending immigration for citizens of the seven countries for 90 days is aimed at protecting the nation against extremists looking to attack Americans and U.S. interests.

The lawsuit against Trump, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and high-ranking Trump administration officials was filed in federal court in Seattle.

The complaint seeks to have key provisions of the executive order declared unconstitutional, Ferguson said. The state is also asking for a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the order.

"We are a country based on the rule of law, and in a courtroom it is not the loudest voice that prevails, it's the Constitution," Ferguson said. "At the end of the day, either you're abiding by the Constitution or you are not. And in our view, the president is not adhering to the Constitution when it comes to this executive action."

Declarations of support from Amazon and Expedia — two Washington state-based businesses — will be filed with the lawsuit, said Ferguson, who was joined at the news conference by Gov. Jay Inslee.

Microsoft, based in Redmond, Washington, also supports Ferguson's efforts, said Dominic Carr, general manager for public affairs. The company will be happy to testify more if needed, Carr said.

The complaint claims that Trump's actions are separating Washington families, harming thousands of state residents, damaging the state economy, hurting Washington-based companies "and undermining Washington's sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees," Ferguson said.

Inslee said the "inhumanity" of Trump's order is obvious.

"This is un-American, it is wrong, and it will not stand," Inslee said. "The clear intent of this executive order is to discriminate against one faith amongst all God's children."

Inslee said he learned the hard way over the years "you do not back down to bullies."

Ferguson said he has been in contact with other attorneys general but at this point Washington state was acting on its own regarding the legal action.

The Port of Seattle said over the weekend that people who were detained at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport as a result of Trump's order have been released.

U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal said Sunday that two individuals were released. One is a citizen of Sudan and the other a citizen of Yemen, both countries named in Trump's order.

CBC also reports Massachusetts and New York's involvement with the inclusion of the ACLU and PP.

I've really never seen anything like this. Low approval, inhumane laws, EO's up the ass, and now lawsuits up the ass.

Do not expect any factual or empirical reasoning to penetrate his bubble. HE argued once with me about how Saudi Arabia is a safe, modern haven for women because women can drink coffee through the burqas in coffeeshops. He is mental, and you'll get nowhere with him. I hope he gets the ban he begs for soon.

@Inferman: So your just gonna deflect now?

@Inferman: So your just gonna deflect now?

Your still refusing to answer. Ill answer yours. Its wrong to beat anyone. Its also wrong to support dictators who oppress people. Do you think a woman has to be objectified in order to be attractive? Why is it ok to objectify women?

Dont waste your time. He is most likely trolling like in every other thread. He'll post a bunch of provocative nonsense, spin whenever people press him, and then act as if the burden of proof is on you for his claim, and he'll give you an answer like "The facts are there, I dont know what to tell you." after giving no facts, merely assertions.

@Inferman: Just ping me when your ready to answer the question.

@Inferman: Your still not answering the question. Why is it ok to objectify women.

@Inferman: So thats suppose to justify objectifying women? Are you crazy?

@Inferman: Our advertisements depict objects rather than people.

Despite the fact that studies have suggested that sex actually doesn't sell, advertisers continue to undress women for the sake of getting more people to watch their stuff. The issue, however, is not the fact that a beautiful lady is strutting her stuff for some cash. But the cinematography looks like a science class dissection for teenage boys. They show you the girl's body in sections (BUTT. BOOBS. BUTT. LEGS. BOOBS. burger. CROTCH. burger. BOOBS.), which turns her into a series of objects rather than a human being. The dude in the commercial, who speaks two words, still speaks more than the girl, who can only manage to laugh instead of saying, "Want some sunscreen?" like normal women who do half-naked burger yoga would do. If we stop portraying women like objects, maybe we can stop treating them like objects.