27.06.2025 04:14
Judge Analisa Torres, presiding over the Ripple-SEC case, decisively rejected a joint motion from both parties seeking to overturn the existing injunction and lessen Ripple's penalty. This refusal firmly upholds her August 2024 ruling, which levied a $125 million fine on Ripple and prohibited the company from selling XRP to institutional US investors. The court's rejection underscores the finality of the judgment.
The judge's order explicitly stated that the proposed settlement, including the vacating of the injunction, holds no sway over the previously issued, legally binding judgment. Crucially, Judge Torres dismissed the legal precedents cited by both Ripple and the SEC, emphasizing their irrelevance to the specific circumstances of this case, particularly concerning the imposed civil penalties and injunction. The cited cases lacked the key element of finalized judgments including securities law violations, a point Judge Torres highlighted in her ruling.
With the joint motion dismissed, the only remaining avenue for either party to challenge the court's decision, Judge Torres made clear, is through the ongoing appeals process at the Second Circuit. The judge explicitly stated that while Ripple and the SEC retain the option to withdraw their appeals, they cannot coerce the court into altering its definitive judgment. The court's decision further highlighted the conditional nature of the parties' agreement, noting that the proposed settlement's reliance on the injunction's dissolution was entirely self-imposed by both parties.
The denial of the joint motion effectively leaves Ripple with the continued burden of navigating the appeals process, potentially further delaying a definitive resolution to the protracted legal battle. This outcome throws the future of Ripple's XRP sales within the US into considerable uncertainty, potentially prolonging the legal complexities surrounding the cryptocurrency. The ruling underscores the significant weight given to final court judgments and limits the ability of parties to negotiate outcomes that contradict previously established legal precedents.
