More than 100,000 visas have been revoked in the wake of the Trump administration's recent travel ban on citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, several media outlets reported on Friday.

A government attorney cited the figure at a federal court hearing over a new lawsuit filed by the state of Virginia to join an existing lawsuit, Aziz v. Trump, against the Trump administration's immigration order.

Aziz v. Trump was filed in a federal court on Sunday on behalf of two Yemeni brothers with valid visas — Tareq Aqel Mohammed Aziz and Ammar Aqel Mohammed Aziz — and "others similarly situated." It alleges that the Aziz brothers and as many as 60 other foreign nationals were detained by Customs and Border Protection agents upon arriving at Washington Dulles International Airport last weekend and "forced to sign" I-407 forms "against their will and without their knowledge or consent."

The forms, if signed, mean the signatory has "voluntarily" abandoned his or her status as a "lawful permanent resident of the United States," according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Erez Reuveni, a senior litigation counsel in the Office of Immigration Litigation at the Justice Department, told the court on Friday that 100,000 people had their visas revoked since last Friday. That is when Trump signed an executive order barring citizens of Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days while the federal government revisits its screening processes.

The order also suspended the US's refugee-admitting program for 120 days, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees from resettling in the US, and gave priority status to minorities fleeing religious persecution.

"The Immigration and Nationality Act provides no way to legally effectuate such a ban against this category of immigrants," the Virginia lawsuit says. "Congress has provided that immigrants in petitioners' situation are entitled to enter the United States, and that if the government disagrees, it must institute regular removal proceedings before an immigration judge."

Trump has defended the order by invoking a policy set by President Barack Obama in 2011 — following the discovery that two men suspected of making bombs to target American troops in Iraq were living in Kentucky as refugees — that restricted the entry of Iraqi visa-holders into the US. Politifact rated Trump's comparison "mostly false," however, saying his immigration order was much broader than the previous administration's and did not respond to a specific threat.

The new numbers provided by the government shed more light on how far-reaching Trump's immigration order has been, and they appear to contradict White House press secretary Sean Spicer's claim on Monday that the order "inconvenienced" only 109 people last weekend. When asked on Friday about the 100,000 figure, Spicer replied that he didn't "have all the information about that right now."

"I'll have to get back to you on that," Spicer said.

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer with the Legal Aid Justice Center who is representing the Aziz brothers, told reporters after the hearing that “the number 100,000 sucked the air out of my lungs."

"I think you could almost hear the collective gasp in the courtroom when the government attorney stated that number that over 100,000 visas have been canceled," Sandoval-Moshenberg said.

Plaintiffs accusing the government of unlawfully stripping them of their legal-immigrant status have apparently been offered new visas by the US government in exchange for dropping their lawsuits, The Washington Post reported. But US District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who presided over the hearing on Friday, said that offer didn't go "far enough."

Brinkema ultimately ruled that the lawsuit would be allowed to move forward.

"It's quite clear that not all the thought went into it that should have gone into it," Brinkema said, referring to the immigration ban. "There has been chaos ... without any kind of actual hard evidence that there is a need" to revoke visas already granted.

"I have never had so much public outpouring as I've seen in this case," she added. "This order touched something in the United States that I've never seen before. It's amazing."