(Reuters) - A federal judge has ruled that the appointment of Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of homeland security, was likely invalid and partially blocked rules Wolf had approved that would limit asylum seekers' ability to work while their applications are pending.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Greenbelt, Maryland on Friday said Wolf's 2019 appointment did not follow the proper order of succession, and that the Department of Homeland Security failed to adequately consider how some of the rules that took effect last month could push asylum seekers to abandon their claims altogether.

Xinis temporarily enjoined six of the eighteen rules challenged by Casa de Maryland and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project in a July lawsuit, but only with respect to the groups' roughly 100,000 members. The groups are represented by the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP).

The rules that were blocked include requirements that asylum seekers wait 365 days to apply for work permits, instead of the previous 150 days, and that they submit fingerprints and other biometric information as part of the application process.

Xinis also blocked DHS from eliminating requirements that it rule on work permit applications within 30 days, and that it deem any application that is still pending after 30 days "complete" for the purposes of granting work authorization.

Xinis was the first judge to consider whether Wolf's appointment was invalid since the U.S. Government Accountability Office last month came to the that conclusion in a non-binding report. Plaintiffs in cases challenging other DHS rules have since raised the same argument.

DHS and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday.

Mariko Hirose, IRAP's litigation director, said the group was pleased that Xinis had recognized the harmful effects the rules would have on asylum seekers.

"Nevertheless, we are disappointed that the court disagreed with some of our arguments and issued a remedy short of fully postponing the rules, which is a remedy specifically provided by the law," she said.

The rules that were not enjoined include one disqualifying applicants who did not cross the border at an authorized port of entry or have been convicted of certain crimes from being granted asylum, and another that eliminated automatic work authorization for asylum seekers who met certain criteria.

IRAP had argued that because the rules were adopted as a package and were "infected by the same procedural improprieties," they all should be struck down.

Xinis on Friday agreed with the group that the elimination of the 30-day deadline was arbitrary, particularly because DHS could have replaced it with a 60 or 90-day window. And the year-long waiting period for work permits would unduly burden asylum seekers, most of whom are forced to survive on meager savings while their applications are pending.

"The fees and costs associated with pursuing the claim are steep," Xinis wrote. "And without any ability to work for at least a year and likely far longer, it is plain that legitimate asylum claims may be abandoned altogether."

But Xinis agreed with the government that the remainder of the rules could stand on their own and were severable, and refused to enjoin them.

The case is Casa de Maryland Inc v. Wolf, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 8:20-cv-02118.

For the plaintiffs: Justin Cox of the International Refugee Assistance Project

For DHS: Jane Andersen of the U.S. Department of Justice