In a recent ruling, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied Anthony Garvin's request for a preliminary injunction against the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). Garvin sought to block an indefinite suspension order issued by the FHFA due to his prior convictions for bank fraud. This decision is significant as it upholds the agency's authority to regulate individuals who pose risks to the financial system.

The case, Garvin v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, Civil Action No. 2026-0608, centers on Garvin's criminal background and the FHFA's determination that his actions could harm regulated entities. Garvin's suspension from engaging in business with these entities is a direct consequence of his past misconduct, which included conspiracy to commit bank fraud.

Garvin was convicted in 2022 for his involvement in a scheme that defrauded financial institutions through fraudulent real estate transactions. Following his conviction, the FHFA determined that his conduct could lead to significant financial or reputational harm to regulated entities. As a result, they issued a suspension order that prevents Garvin from conducting business with these entities indefinitely.

Background

The FHFA was established in response to the 2008 housing crisis to oversee entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agency created the Suspended Counterparty Program (SCP) to manage relationships with individuals who have engaged in misconduct that could threaten the safety of the financial system. Under this program, the FHFA can issue suspension orders if an individual is found to have committed “covered misconduct,” which includes any fraud-related convictions.

Garvin's legal troubles began in 2019 when he was indicted on charges of bank fraud and conspiracy. He was accused of misleading financial institutions into accepting losses on mortgages before reselling properties at inflated prices. After pleading guilty in December 2022, Garvin was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay restitution. His conviction was upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024.

In November 2025, the FHFA issued a proposed suspension order against Garvin, citing his convictions as justification. After reviewing Garvin's response, the agency finalized the suspension order in January 2026, stating that his actions posed a significant risk to the regulated entities.

The Ruling

Judge Carl J. Nichols presided over the case and ultimately denied Garvin's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ruled that Garvin had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims against the FHFA. The ruling emphasized that the FHFA had reasonably concluded that Garvin's criminal conduct warranted the suspension.

The court ruled, "FHFA reasonably concluded that Garvin’s convictions for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and bank fraud constituted ‘covered misconduct.’"

Judge Nichols pointed out that Garvin's criminal activities, which involved a multi-year scheme to defraud financial institutions, fell under the definition of misconduct that could harm the regulated entities. The court found that the FHFA acted within its authority to impose an indefinite suspension.

Garvin had argued that the FHFA failed to adequately consider his mitigating evidence and did not explore alternative sanctions. However, the court concluded that the agency had the discretion to impose a permanent suspension based on the severity of Garvin's actions. The ruling noted that Garvin did not provide sufficient legal authority to support his claims that a lesser sanction was required.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals in similar situations. It reinforces the FHFA's authority to regulate individuals with criminal backgrounds that could jeopardize the financial system. The decision also highlights the importance of the agency's discretion in determining the appropriate length of suspensions based on the nature of the misconduct.

Moving forward, the ruling may deter individuals with similar convictions from attempting to engage in business with regulated entities, knowing that the FHFA has the power to impose strict sanctions. It also sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar cases involving agency suspensions based on criminal conduct.

What's Next

Garvin's legal options may include appealing the court's decision. However, the ruling has established a strong foundation for the FHFA's authority and the rationale behind the suspension order. Details regarding any related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.