To reduce the size of the bloated federal bureaucracy, President Donald Trump and his political appointees across the executive branch have fired, laid off, or otherwise terminated a reported 200,000 or more probationary employees over the past couple of months, and as with just about every other move made by Trump since his inauguration, lawsuits were filed to block those cuts to the government's workforce.

On Thursday, two federal judges presiding over separate lawsuits both ordered the Trump administration to rehire or reinstate tens of thousands of those probationary employees who'd been let go, Reuters reported.

The twin rulings represent an infuriating setback to the president's efforts to slim down the federal workforce but also likely only delay the inevitable, as the administration stands a decent chance of being vindicated on appeal since probationary employees typically lack the same protections from being fired as full-time employees and can often be terminated for little or no reason at all.

Judge orders immediate rehiring of fired employees

The first ruling against and reversal of the Trump administration's firing of thousands of probationary employees came Thursday afternoon from U.S. District Judge William Alsup of California, a Clinton appointee, who berated the assistant U.S. attorney tasked with arguing the administration's position in court, according to Politico.

The judge decried the ostensibly "unlawful" firings and accused the administration of using "sham" and "gimmick" excuses for the terminations as well as of lying to and attempting to "stonewall" the court as it sought out the truth.

The problem here, as observed by Alsup, is not that the executive branch lacks the authority to fire probationary employees, but rather that the administration failed to follow the proper procedures in place for terminating such employees.

"The words that I give you today should not be taken that some wild-and-crazy judge in San Francisco said that an administration cannot engage in a reduction in force," the judge quipped. "It can be done, if it’s done in accordance with the law."

In the end, Politico noted, Judge Alsup ordered six federal departments to "immediately" rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees who'd recently been fired, including the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.

Temporary restraining order issued to block firings

Just a few hours later on Thursday evening, NBC News reported that a similar ruling was issued against the Trump administration by U.S. District Judge James Bredar of Maryland, an Obama appointee.

Like his colleague in California, Bredar asserted that the administration failed to abide by the lawful procedures for firing probationary employees and, as such, issued a temporary restraining order that effectively blocked their termination for the time being.

"In this case, the government conducted massive layoffs, but it gave no advance notice. It claims it wasn’t required to because, it says, it dismissed each one of these thousands of probationary employees for 'performance' or other individualized reasons," the judge said. "On the record before the Court, this isn’t true. There were no individualized assessments of employees. They were all just fired. Collectively."

Deadline set for fired employees to be reinstated

Judge Bredar set a deadline of March 17 for all impacted probationary employees in more than a dozen departments and agencies to be reinstated to their prior positions, per NBC News.

That includes the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as certain agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., General Service Administration, Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The outlet noted that the Trump White House declined to respond to a request for comment about the two rulings, but that response will likely come soon via appeals to reverse those decisions.