Yeah.
‘Administrative judge’ isn’t a munificent position compared to practise, or an Article 3 position.
And this doesn’t seem to be “news” to me- though I might be mistaken.
Still, lots of Obama appointments could be replaced with real judges.
Actually, it's pretty big news because of the way Congress has abdicated power to the administrative state through rule making and enforcement within the respective agencies.
The way it works is that Congress doesn't want to make laws because it's messy and people might get mad at them, so they pass nebulous bills which essentially say this is what we'd like to see done and the agency in question will make the actual rules, but we'll have oversight authority on them meaning our fine elected officials will grandstand for the cameras over some agency underling at a hearing along the way. Now you know why we see a lot of noisy, but meaningless hearings.
The agency in question then drafts the rules and appoints its own judge—an administrative judge—to hear cases brought against it by the aggrieved party in the private sector. Just imagine the likes of the detestable John Koskinen appointing IRS administrative judges who were heretofore untouchable and you can see the importance of this ruling. It's another tributary of the swamp and a rather large one at that which President Trump is now getting to drain.