Judge Analisa Torres has rejected a joint request by Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to change the final judgment in their high-profile lawsuit. The motion aimed to reduce Ripple’s $125 million penalty to $50 million and remove the permanent injunction on Ripple’s institutional sales of XRP tokens. The judge’s decision makes clear that the court’s earlier rulings stand firm.
Court Stands Firm on Final Judgment
Judge Torres emphasized that once a court issues a final judgment, it cannot be undone by private agreements between parties. The $125 million fine and the injunction were based on a legal finding that Ripple violated securities laws. These penalties cannot be erased without strong legal reasons, which the court found were missing.
To modify a final judgment, the law requires “exceptional circumstances” that outweigh public interest and justice. Ripple and the SEC did not meet this high standard. The judge pointed out that the SEC’s recent shift to a more crypto-friendly stance does not justify changing the ruling. Other SEC crypto cases cited by the parties were dismissed before any court ruling, unlike Ripple’s case, which went through a full trial.
Background of the Ripple-SEC Lawsuit
The SEC sued Ripple in December 2020, claiming that Ripple’s sales of XRP tokens were unregistered securities offerings. In 2023, Judge Torres ruled that XRP sales to institutional investors violated securities laws, while programmatic sales on public exchanges did not.
Ripple was fined $125 million in 2024, and a permanent injunction was imposed to restrict Ripple’s institutional XRP sales. Both Ripple and the SEC appealed the decision but later tried to settle by reducing the fine and lifting the injunction. The court rejected this attempt.
What This Means for Ripple and the Crypto Industry
This ruling highlights the court’s role in enforcing securities laws and protecting the integrity of its decisions. It sends a clear message: settlements cannot override court judgments in public enforcement cases without meeting strict legal standards.
For the crypto industry, this is a reminder that legal obligations and penalties cannot be easily undone by private deals. Ripple must continue to comply with the injunction and pay the full penalty unless a higher court changes the ruling.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Details |
| Judge | Analisa Torres |
| Motion Denied | Joint motion by Ripple and SEC to reduce $125M fine to $50M and vacate injunction |
| Reason for Denial | Lack of exceptional circumstances; final judgment cannot be altered by private agreement |
| SEC Regulatory Change | New crypto-friendly approach not sufficient to change court ruling |
| Legal Status of XRP | Institutional sales violate securities laws; programmatic sales do not |
| Options for Parties | Withdraw appeals or continue appeals without absolving Ripple of obligations |
Key Takeaways
- Final court judgments in securities cases have strong protection against change.
- The SEC’s new crypto policies do not affect existing court rulings.
- Parties must prove “exceptional circumstances” to modify a final judgment.
- Ripple remains bound by the injunction and the $125 million penalty.
FAQs
Q: Can Ripple still appeal the ruling?
- Yes, Ripple and the SEC can continue their appeals. But the district court will not change the final judgment unless ordered by a higher court.
Q: Why can’t the parties just settle and reduce the penalty?
- Because the judgment enforces federal securities laws and public interest, private settlements cannot override it without strong legal reasons.
Q: Does the SEC’s new crypto policy affect this case?
- No, the judge ruled the SEC’s regulatory changes don’t justify changing the court’s final decision.
Q: What happens to the injunction on Ripple?
- The permanent injunction stays in place, limiting Ripple’s institutional XRP sales.
Judge Torres’ decision shows the strength of judicial finality and the importance of enforcing securities laws in crypto. Ripple and the SEC must now work within the legal framework instead of trying to undo the court’s rulings through settlement.
