SCOTUS declines convicted former HUD official's request to remain free in light of recent Jan. 6 ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week issued a decision that came as a bitter disappointment to an embattled former official at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

As The Epoch Times reports, the justices rejected a request from Eghbal Saffarinia, former assistant inspector general at HUD during the Obama-Biden administration to remain out of prison pending what he said was a likely review of his case in light of a recent decision in a Jan. 6-related case.

Underlying corruption case, explained

Saffarinia was set to begin serving a sentence of one year and one day after he was convicted for failure to report $80,000 in loans received from an individual to whom he steered tens of millions of dollars in government contracts during his time at HUD.

Soon after starting employment at the federal agency, Saffarinia canceled a contract with its then-IT service provider and facilitated the use of Orchid Technologies -- owned by his friend -- as a subcontractor by the firm to win the contract back from the government.

Ultimately, the department awarded the lucrative contract to another company that had partnered with Orchid Technologies, which loaned Saffarinia the significant aforementioned sum.

This chain of events ran counter to the provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, which requires high-ranking officials inside the government to file yearly financial disclosures of any liability exceeding $10,000, which Saffarinia did not do in relation to the loan.

In the end, a jury found Saffarnia guilty of four counts of concealing a material factor or making a false statement as well as three counts of falsified records or documents with the intent ot impede or obstruct or influence the investigation or proper administration of a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal department, as Courthouse News Service explains.

Review requested

Last month, Saffarinia petitioned the high court to conduct an emergency review of his sentence in light of its ruling in the case of Fischer v. United States, a Jan. 6-related controversy that implicated the use of an obstruction statute to prosecute protestors from that fateful day.

In June, the justices determined that the Department of Justice utilized an overly broad interpretation of the statute, which was similar to the one under which Saffarinia was charged, and declared that a narrower assessment of the conduct at issue was required,

Arguing that the holding in Fischer was now relevant precedent and that he was likely to prevail on appeal, Saffarinia claimed that immediate Supreme Court review was necessary to prevent the possibility that he would serve his year-and-a-day prison sentence before his arguments could be addressed by the panel on the merits.

He contended that the appeals court's take on his case was in error in that it gave the relevant statutory phrase “proper administration of a matter” an erroneously broad reading such that it could “encompass any imaginable activity of a federal agency, no matter how workday or routine.”

Saffarinia further stated that if the appellate court's interpretation was allowed to stand, it could elevate relatively innocuous omissions or false statements to the level of a felony obstruction charge capable of yielding two decades in prison.

Bid denied

Though Saffarinia had hoped the court would take action on his request by Aug. 22, which was when he was slated to begin serving his prison term, but the date came and went with no action on the part of the justices.

This week's denial was issued without any detailed explanation and with no stated dissents, leaving Saffarinia no further options for recourse in terms of delaying enforcement of his sentence.