Republicans intend to fight California’s congressional redistricting plan all the way to to the US Supreme Court after a three-judge panel ruled in favor of Democrats’ gerrymandering efforts with Proposition 50.

“The California Republican Party will be seeking an emergency injunction from the Supreme Court of the United States,” Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, said in a statement.

Rankin thanked the three-judge panel for their “thoughtful and timely work” in making a decision after a three-day hearing in December, adding that the “well-reasoned dissenting opinion” by Judge Kenneth K. Lee “better reflects our interpretation of the law and the facts, which we will reassert to the Supreme Court.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom led the Prop 50 effort in a response to President Trump and Republicans in other states attempting to redraw lines. The governor’s office was quick to gloat in a social media post.

“Can’t spell Republican without an L,” Newsom’s troll office posted on X.

Republicans contested the maps drawn by Prop 50, claiming that the new lines would unfairly benefit Latino voters at the expense of other racial groups.

In his dissent, Lee noted that Paul Mitchell, the Democratic consultant who wrote the maps and refused to appear in court, had “publicly boasted” that race likely played a predominant role in the way maps were drawn.

“The map drawer’s plain statements acknowledging that he racially gerrymandered the Proposition 50 maps, which he and the legislature refused to explain or deny, in addition to our experts’ testimony, established that the courts should stop the implementation of the Prop 50 map,” Rankin said. “We look forward to continuing this fight in the courts.”

The controversial measure, which was approved by voters last November, allows California to redraw its congressional lines and could help Democrats add up to five more seats the US House — helping them in their fight to reclaim Congress in the 2026 midterms.

Richard L. Hasen, a UCLA law professor who wrote an amicus brief in favor of the Democrats’ position on Prop. 50, told The Post in an email that he expects the Supreme Court to rule on the GOP’s emergency motion before California’s candidate filing deadline on March 6.

This would be similar to what the Supreme Court did in the Texas case, before judges reversed an earlier decision that had invalidated that state’s redrawn maps.

If this occurs in the California case, the Supreme Court’s “ruling would be without oral argument, and it would only be about what to do for the 2026 elections,” Hasen wrote in an email to The Post.

Newsom himself tweeted out “FAFO,” an acronym for “F–k around and find out,” a phrase favored by the Trump administration and commonly used as a flex.

Republicans contested the maps drawn by Prop 50, claiming that the new lines would unfairly benefit Latino voters at the expense of other racial groups. Wednesday’s ruling followed a three-day hearing in December in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney General Bonta championed the ruling, saying the “decision upholds the will of the people.”

“It also means that, to date, every single challenge against Proposition 50 has failed,” Bonta said in a statement. “I couldn’t be prouder of my team for successfully defending this ballot initiative in court on behalf of Governor Newsom and Secretary of State Weber. We remain confident in the legality of Proposition 50.”

State Asemblymember David Tangipa, who was part of the Republican group that sued the state over Prop. 50, was not immediately available for comment Wednesday as he and staff reviewed the ruling.

Tangipa previously told The Post in an interview that Republicans would challenge the decision all the way to the Supreme Court.

Judges Josephine L. Staton and Wesley L. Hsu both ruled to deny the preliminary injuction, with Station noting in her opinion that “the record contains a mountain of statements reflecting the partisan goals of Proposition 50, from which Challengers have culled a molehill of statements showing race consciousness.”

In dissent, Judge Kenneth K. Lee noted that Paul Mitchell, the Democratic consultant who wrote the maps and refused to appear in court, had “publicly boasted” that race likely played a predominant role in the way maps were drawn.

“To be sure, California’s main goal was to add more Democratic congressional seats,” Lee wrote. “But that larger political gerrymandering plan does not allow California to smuggle in racially gerrymandered seats.”

Rep. Ken Calvert, who is planning to run in this year against fellow GOP Rep. Young Kim after his Riverside County district was carved up by the new maps, called the judges’ decision “disappointing.”

“The liberal judges conveniently ignored statements made by the Democrat’s mapmaker that race was a predominant factor in his line-drawing, which is a violation of the equal protection rights afforded under our Constitution,” Calvert said in a statement. “I hope this ruling is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.”