7h05 ▪
5
min read ▪ by
The legal saga between Ripple and the SEC has reached a new milestone. While an out-of-court settlement seemed within reach, the federal court has sharply rejected the joint attempt by both parties. This setback raises uncertainty around a confrontation that has become central to the regulatory future of cryptos in the United States, reaffirming the complexity of a clear outcome in a case closely followed by the entire industry.
In Brief
- The US court has rejected the negotiated agreement between Ripple and the SEC, citing a procedural error.
- The request aimed to reduce Ripple’s fine from $125M to $50M and lift an injunction effective since 2024.
- Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the joint approach did not comply with Rule 60, necessary to modify a final judgment.
- Experts like attorney James Filan emphasize that only an explicit green light from the judge could allow a negotiated exit.
A procedural setback for Ripple and the SEC
In a decision published on May 15, 2025, Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District Court of New York rejected the joint request by the SEC and Ripple to modify the final judgment rendered in 2024.
This request notably proposed reducing the financial penalty imposed on Ripple from $125 million to $50 million, and lifting an injunction preventing it from violating securities laws.
The judge clarified that this approach was “procedurally inappropriate” and should have been made under Rule 60, a specific procedure requiring the demonstration of “extraordinary circumstances” to modify a final judgment.
She ruled unambiguously :
If jurisdiction were restored to this Court, it would deny the request as procedurally inappropriate.
This decision follows a procedure started in 2020, in which the SEC accused Ripple of illegally offering unregistered securities through the sale of XRP.
Although Ripple achieved a significant legal victory in 2023, with the court ruling that programmatic sales of XRP did not constitute securities transactions, a $125 million penalty was imposed in 2024 but was stayed pending appeal.
The rejection of the deal proposed on May 8, 2025 currently prevents any rapid resolution. To better understand what was at stake, here is what the agreement provided :
- The removal of the injunction : Ripple sought to lift the prohibition against violating securities laws, in effect since the 2024 decision ;
- A reduction of the penalty : the agreement foresaw a fine of $50 million, down from the originally set $125 million, a 60 % reduction, subject to court approval ;
- An early end to the dispute : the compromise would have allowed both parties to terminate their appeals before the Court of Appeals, under a fast-track procedure called “partial remand to the trial court“.
However, the judge closed this door and emphasized that these requests could not be dealt with outside the legal channels provided by federal civil procedure.
This rejection thus maintains legal uncertainty over the judicial future of Ripple, despite the already established recognition that XRP is not qualified as a security.
A resolution still out of reach : the implications of a judicial stalemate
Since this judicial announcement, several observers of the case, including attorney James Filan, have tried to clarify the practical consequences of this rejection. On the X network, Filan reminded that the case can only be concluded if the judge “first signals her intention to lift the injunction and approve the $50 million distribution to the SEC“.
Only under that condition could both parties request a limited remand before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, an essential prerequisite to formalize the agreement. In other words, as long as Judge Torres does not give this signal, the dispute remains legally active and prevents the official closure of the litigation.
This situation forces Ripple to maintain its appeal strategy, extending a procedure already nearly five years long. The SEC, on its side, shows through this refusal that it does not intend to yield on procedures, even when a compromise is negotiated.
This institutional hardening illustrates the structural difficulties in obtaining legal-regulatory agreements within the crypto ecosystem, where disputes often face particularly strict procedural standards. By rejecting the deal, the court sends a clear message: no procedural acceleration will be accepted outside the traditional legal framework.
Maximize your Cointribune experience with our “Read to Earn” program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
Diplômé de Sciences Po Toulouse et titulaire d’une certification consultant blockchain délivrée par Alyra, j’ai rejoint l’aventure Cointribune en 2019.
Convaincu du potentiel de la blockchain pour transformer de nombreux secteurs de l’économie, j’ai pris l’engagement de sensibiliser et d’informer le grand public sur cet écosystème en constante évolution. Mon objectif est de permettre à chacun de mieux comprendre la blockchain et de saisir les opportunités qu’elle offre. Je m’efforce chaque jour de fournir une analyse objective de l’actualité, de décrypter les tendances du marché, de relayer les dernières innovations technologiques et de mettre en perspective les enjeux économiques et sociétaux de cette révolution en marche.
DISCLAIMER
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.
