The Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to immediately overturn a lower court’s block on federal immigration enforcement stops in Southern California — a ruling handed down by a Biden-appointed judge who claimed the operations were unconstitutional.

The emergency appeal follows the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ refusal to lift a temporary restraining order that has stalled the administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration in one of the nation’s largest sanctuary regions. The high court will now decide whether to grant emergency relief as the broader legal fight unfolds.

The push comes amid an onslaught of courtroom battles against President Donald J. Trump’s sweeping second-term agenda. According to the Associated Press, the administration has been involved in more than 250 legal cases tied to the president’s executive actions. Of those, 91 remain pending, 109 have been partially or fully blocked, and 74 are still in effect.

California remains ground zero in the legal war over immigration policy. Recent unrest in Los Angeles sparked a major confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, prompting President Trump to deploy the National Guard and U.S. Marines to restore order — despite strong objections from Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The legal blockade began last week when U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong of the Central District of California — appointed by Joe Biden — issued an injunction halting federal immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. She claimed there is a “mountain of evidence” that federal enforcement practices likely violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In its emergency appeal, the Trump administration warned that Frimpong’s injunction is a direct threat to the enforcement of federal immigration law and significantly undermines the ability of federal agents to perform lawful operations.

The 9th Circuit sided with Frimpong, questioning the administration’s assertion that the stops were reasonable and unaffected by the injunction, Newsweek reported.

Government attorney Jacob Roth argued that the ruling was overly broad and lacked sufficient evidence to prove the administration’s enforcement practices violated constitutional standards.

“Legally, I think it’s appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,” Roth said, referencing race, language, presence at location, and occupation — all of which were listed in the restraining order.

Administration officials have forcefully condemned the rulings.

“Unelected judges are undermining the will of the American people. President Trump and Secretary Noem are putting the American people first by removing illegal aliens who pose a threat to our communities,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told the Associated Press.

“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” said U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. “The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was even more blunt: “These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens.”

Newsweek reported that the Supreme Court will hear arguments for a preliminary injunction against the lower court’s orders in September.

The high court also made headlines this week for declining to hear challenges from state and local governments seeking to force oil companies to pay billions for alleged climate change damages.

“Consumers are not helped by these cases, which seek to wipe products from store shelves and funnel money to left-wing causes,” said O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers. “Here is hoping the targets of these lawsuits continue to fight these cases, as they have consistently prevailed in the final stages of review, and that is the only way for consumers not to be sacrificed before the left-wing onslaught here.”