Californians craving foie gras can break out that bottle of Sauternes and celebrate — a federal judge has struck down the state’s ban on the delicacy produced from the enlarged livers of force-fed ducks and geese.

In a battle pitting “gourmands’ stomachs and animal activists’ hearts,” Los Angeles U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson on Wednesday invalidated the two-year-old ban, finding that federal food regulations pre-empt California’s ability to outlaw the dish. At least for now, that means the controversial gourmet’s delight can go back on the menu.

Chefs and gourmands in food-crazed California rejoiced at the foie gras reprieve.

“It’s baaaack!!” San Francisco’s 4505 Meats tweeted and said diners could satisfy their cravings with their Foie Gras Boudin Blanc. Seared foie gras will be back on the tasting menu Friday at Chez TJ in Mountain View, said Jarad Gallagher, executive chef of the Michelin-starred restaurant and active in the fight to get the ban overturned.

“It’s a huge repertoire to have back,” he said.

The ruling came in a long-running legal battle over the original California law, enacted in 2004 in response to animal rights groups who say that the production of foie gras is inhumane. The U.S. Supreme Court just a few months ago rejected one legal challenge to the law, but Wilson’s ruling revives the industry’s fight to keep foie gras on California restaurant tables.

Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office, which is defending the ban, said only she is “reviewing the ruling.” But state lawyers can appeal Wilson’s decision and ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to keep the ban intact while the case unfolds.

Animal rights groups were confident the state would appeal. The Farm Sanctuary, one of the animal-rights groups which co-sponsored the law, called the decision a “complete misapplication of the law.”

“Foie gras is a product of egregious cruelty to animals, and the state of California has an absolute right to ban it,” said Bruce Friedrich, Farm Sanctuary’s advocacy and policy director.

Despite the ban, foie gras fans found some California chefs still willing to serve it — without fanfare — as it was not illegal to possess, just to sell. And now, it’ll be on the menu again.

Joe Cirone, chef-owner of Hay Market in San Jose’s Willow Glen, said the delicacy will be back, but not for a week or so — until he can get California foie that fits his demands for “natural, local” food. And within hours of the ruling, chef David Bazirgan of Dirty Habit restaurant in San Francisco had concocted an all-foie gras $60 tasting menu of four courses, starting with oysters poached in foie gras fat and ending with an entree of aged rib-eye steak with seared foie gras and black truffle.

Foie gras, which means “fatty liver” in French, is produced by force-feeding ducks and geese with corn to enlarge their livers. Animal rights groups have argued that producing the gourmet dish is cruel, and state lawmakers banned any food product created “by force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging a bird’s liver beyond a normal size.”

In the most recent legal wrangling, groups such as Canadian foie gras producer Association Des Eleveurs De Canards Et Doies Du Quebec and New York’s Hudson Valley Foie Gras argued the ban is superseded by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act, which regulates the sales and distribution of poultry products, including foie gras. They say they’ve lost millions of dollars in foie gras sales during the ban, and that some distributors have been threatened with prosecution in Los Angeles, Monterey and Santa Clara counties.

But state lawyers disagreed, arguing the federal law does not deal with animal feeding practices and that California has the authority to ban foie gras.

Animal rights groups had a harsh response for the revived menu item and remain hopeful Wilson’s ruling gets overturned.

“Foie gras is French for fatty liver,” said Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, “and ‘fathead’ is the American word for the shameless chefs who actually need a law to make them stop serving the swollen, near-bursting organ of a cruelly force-fed bird.”

Staff writers Josh Richman and Linda Zavoral contributed to this story. Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at 408-286-0236 or follow him at Twitter.com/hmintz