RICHMOND, Va. (WVEC) -- Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring joined 16 other attorneys general in filing amicus briefs with the United States Supreme Court opposing President Donald Trump's immigration ban.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) originally brought the case, IRAP v. Trump.

A federal court in Maryland blocked portions of the ban in March. In May, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the suspension of the ban.

"From day one, I saw President Trump's Muslim ban for what it was, and so have multiple courts across the country," said Attorney General Mark Herring. "This ban is unconstitutional and un-American, and I will continue to stand up for all Virginians and their freedom to worship however they choose."

Attorneys general also directly filed suit against the president's first and second immigration bans. Monday, the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction secured against the immigration ban in March in a federal district court in Hawaii.

Herring and attorneys generals from New York, Maryland, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia filed two briefs Monday. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman wrote the first. Herring and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh wrote the second brief.

A news released said the states explained "that allowing the ban to take effect would harm their people, institutions, and economies, including by inhibiting the free exchange of information, ideas, and talent between the six designated countries and the amici States, including at the States' many educa¬tional institutions; disrupting the provision of medical care at the States' hospitals; harming the life sciences, technology, health care, finance, and tourism indus¬tries, as well as innumerable other small and large businesses throughout the States; inflicting economic damage on the States themselves through both increased costs and immediately diminished tax revenues; and hindering the States from effectuating the policies of religious tolerance and nondiscrimination enshrined in our laws and our state constitutions."

The states contend that this is not the right time for the Supreme Court to hear the case, because the travel ban calls for its own imminent modification. That would make reviewing it at this juncture premature.