This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The U.S. Department of Justice has gone to the D.C. Court of Appeals to halt an order from a "superjudge" who is preventing President Donald Trump's decision-making and management of the executive branch.

"Superjudge' is a derogatory term that has surfaced to describe those federal judges who take it upon themselves to say that Trump cannot manage the executive branch of our government as he chooses, as the Constitution allows.

It is the Gateway Pundit that explains the fight is over a decision by a Barack Obama judge who told the administration it must restore Gwynne Wilcox to a position on the National Labor Relations Board.

The DOJ's action is a request for an emergency motion halting the ruling from the judge, Beryl Howell, and the judge has been ordered to respond.

"This appeal arises from an order of the district court reinstating a principal officer of the United States whom the President has lawfully fired. The court's unprecedented order works a grave harm to the separation of powers and undermines the President's ability to exercise his authority under the Constitution," the filing explained. "The government seeks a stay of the order pending appeal and respectfully requests an immediate administrative stay."

Howell claimed, in last week's ruling, that Trump's dismissal of the executive branch employee was a violation of the law.

Trump had fired Wilcox from a position as general counsel to the board.

"Trump's decision to fire pro-union members Gwynne Wilcox and the labor board's general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo got pushback from the agency and was described as an 'unprecedented and illegal' move," the report explained.

And Wilcox promised to fight her dismissal.

Howell's opinion shocked many, with its comparison of Trump to a "dictator."

Howell claimed, "A President who touts an image of himself as a 'king' or a 'dictator,' perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In our constitutional order, the President is tasked to be a conscientious custodian of the law, albeit an energetic one, to take care of effectuating his enumerated duties, including the laws enacted by the Congress and as interpreted by the Judiciary."

Howell claimed the president doesn't have the authority to remove members of the NLRB at will.

Howell cited a 1935 case in claiming Wilcox was protected from dismissal.

That case, known as Humphrey's Executor, does provide some protections for specific individuals, but there also is a movement to see it overturned at a faulty precedent, with Justice Clarence Thomas previously criticizing the standard.

"Humphrey's Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people . . . Our tolerance of independent agencies in Humphrey's Executor is an unfortunate example of the Court's failure to apply the Constitution as written. That decision has paved the way for an ever-expanding encroachment on the power of the Executive, contrary to our constitutional design," he said.