Another federal judge ruled against President Trump last night, this time as it relates to his administration defunding sanctuary cities that refused to aid federal immigration efforts.

This is an Obama-appointed judge who has major ties to prominent Democrats and made a similar ruling in April.

Here’s more from the AP:

A judge ruled late Friday the Trump administration cannot deny funding to Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration efforts.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco extended a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from cutting off or conditioning the use of federal funds for so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. His earlier order protected more than a dozen other cities and counties, including San Francisco, Portland and Seattle.

An email to the White House late Friday was not immediately returned. In his ruling, Orrick said the administration had offered no opposition to an extended injunction except to say the first injunction was wrong. It has appealed the first order.

Orrick also blocked the administration from imposing immigration-related conditions on two particular grant programs.

The Trump administration has ratcheted up pressure on sanctuary communities as it seeks to make good on President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to remove millions of people in the country illegally.

One executive order issued by Trump directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to withhold federal money from sanctuary jurisdictions. Another order directs every federal agency to ensure that payments to state and local governments do not “abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”

The cities and counties that sued said billions of dollars were at risk.

Orrick, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, said the executive orders and the “executive actions that have parroted them” were an unconstitutional “coercive threat.”

I look forward to this ruling being overturned in the future, either by the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court.