Following the latest development in the Ripple vs SEC case, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres has denied both the SEC and Ripple Labs’ motion to dissolve the injunction and reduce the $125 million penalty related to XRP token sales. The one line ruling: “The request is DENIED” is the second time the judge has shot down attempts to modify the core judgment, reaffirming that judicial finality, investor protection and market integrity cannot be overridden by private agreement.
- Why the Ripple vs SEC Case Matters
- Settlement and Judicial Integrity
- Institutional Sales vs. Judicial Oversight
- Ripple, XRP, and the Crypto Industry
- Conclusion: What’s Next in the Ripple vs SEC Case
- FAQs
- What did Judge Torres rule in the Ripple vs SEC case?
- What is the permanent injunction in this case?
- Can Ripple still sell XRP to retail investors?
- Can Ripple appeal this?
- Glossary
Why the Ripple vs SEC Case Matters
The main issue in the Ripple vs SEC update today is whether a joint settlement can trump a final judgment to eliminate the permanent injunction and reduce penalties. The court said under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure revising a final judgment requires “extraordinary circumstances.” Neither the SEC nor Ripple showed such grounds, so the request was procedurally improper and against the public interest.
Judge Torres’s ruling says judicial decisions serve the broader legal community, not just private parties. Her quote invokes Supreme Court precedent:
“A final judgment … belongs ‘to the legal community as a whole’ and ‘should stand unless … the public interest would be served by a vacatur.’”
Settlement and Judicial Integrity
In May, Ripple and the SEC proposed a new settlement: Ripple would pay $50 million and the SEC would drop its appeal and injunction. However, Judge Torres wouldn’t vacate the permanent injunction or reduce the penalty, citing a likelihood of future violations after past institutional XRP sales of $728 million. She ruled that such judicial measures are not negotiable via consensual settlement, especially when they serve investor protection and regulatory compliance.
Her point in the Ripple vs SEC update today is that settlements must respect judicial findings. Even SEC-sanctioned settlement attempts can’t contravene prior judgments based on statutory violations.
Institutional Sales vs. Judicial Oversight
The original lawsuit in December 2020 alleged Ripple sold XRP as unregistered securities. In July 2023, Judge Torres found retail XRP sales were compliant with securities law but ruled $728 million of institutional sales were securities and therefore violations. That ruling barred Ripple from institutional XRP sales, fined them $125 million and forced them to appoint an independent compliance advisor.
Judge Torres reiterated that these findings, based on Ripple’s past behavior and incentives, couldn’t be dismissed by settlement. The injunction is a legal deterrent and upholds federal securities enforcement.
Ripple, XRP, and the Crypto Industry
Ripple is still barred from institutional XRP sales under the permanent injunction. Retail trading is fine. Officials reported that Ripple’s next move is undecided, with appeals or withdrawal of the motion under consideration.
In the broader crypto space, the Ripple vs SEC case sends a clear message: regulatory frameworks and investor safety will trump expedient settlements; even by the regulators themselves. This is a far cry from other cases dismissed earlier this year, like Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken in 2025, which were dismissed before findings.
Conclusion: What’s Next in the Ripple vs SEC Case
Moving forward, Ripple has options a few options: They can Appeal the Decision; that is take it to the Second Circuit Court; they can Withdraw Settlement Motions, that is abandon the motion to vacate and explore other paths or they can Comply Going Forward, that is operate under current obligations with the possibility of future dialogue based on new regulatory or legislative developments.
A lot of attention will be on second-order effects: will this case prompt Congressional action to clarify crypto securities law or codify regulatory guidance to reduce future uncertainty?
Summary
In the Ripple vs SEC update today, Judge Analisa Torres denied the SEC and Ripple’s request to vacate the permanent injunction and reduce Ripple’s $125 million fine. She found the motion was procedurally insufficient under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that court decisions serve the public interest, not private parties. The judge reaffirmed that Ripple’s institutional XRP sales violated federal securities laws.
FAQs
What did Judge Torres rule in the Ripple vs SEC case?
She denied the joint motion by Ripple and the SEC to vacate the injunction and reduce the $125 million fine
What is the permanent injunction in this case?
It prohibits Ripple from selling XRP in institutional deals, the area the court found violated securities law.
Can Ripple still sell XRP to retail investors?
Yes, the injunction only targets institutional XRP sales. Ripple’s retail sales are unaffected.
Can Ripple appeal this?
Ripple or the SEC can appeal to the Second Circuit Court or withdraw their motion altogether.
Glossary
Ripple vs SEC case: A lawsuit where the SEC sued Ripple for selling XRP as unregistered securities, resulting in a mixed decision: institutional sales violations but retail sales not deemed securities.
Injunction: A court order to stop a party from doing something—in this case, institutional XRP sales.
Vacatur: The process of setting aside a court’s previous ruling.
Indicative Ruling: A preliminary judicial indication of how a court might rule if fully empowered—used here by both SEC and Ripple to ask the court to modify the judgment.
Institutional Sales: XRP sales to big investors like banks or funds, as opposed to retail transactions on public exchanges.
Public Interest: The judicial standard that considers the impact on society as a whole and fairness over private parties’ preferences.
Sources
For advertising inquiries, please email . [email protected] or Telegram
