Ripple Addresses Key Issues in SEC Case Filing

On June 17, 2025, Ripple Labs Inc. submitted a supplemental letter in the ongoing SEC v. Ripple case, addressing key issues related to the proposed dissolution of the “obey the law” injunction. The filing, shared with the XRP community by legal analyst James K. Filan, outlines Ripple’s position on three significant matters that had previously gone unaddressed in earlier submissions.

Attorney Fred Rispoli, who reviewed the two-page filing, described it as “not the strongest attempt” but acknowledged its necessity in addressing significant gaps in the record. Rispoli noted that Ripple’s supplemental letter tackled three major issues that had previously gone unaddressed in the parties’ earlier submissions.

The first issue highlighted by Rispoli was the appellate implications of the case. He pointed out that Ripple had now formally acknowledged that the district court’s ruling is not the final word on the matter. This recognition helps address and potentially mitigate “appellate risk,” signaling Ripple’s awareness that future litigation or rulings by higher courts could impact the resolution of the case. Ripple’s filing clarifies that the Summary Judgment Order from the district court remains binding on the parties and suggests that the appellate process will help shape the final legal resolution. The company supports a negotiated resolution that avoids prolonging what has already been a resource-intensive legal battle.

The second issue discussed by Rispoli is the implication of dissolving the injunction imposed on Ripple. He remarked that Ripple effectively argues nothing material would change by removing the “vanilla injunction,” since the company remains obligated to follow the law under existing securities regulations, regardless of whether the injunction remains in place. This position is reinforced in the filing, which states that Ripple will not be absolved of its responsibilities even if the court agrees to the proposed relief. Ripple clarified that its compliance with securities laws is not contingent on the existence of an injunction, as the Summary Judgment Order remains enforceable. This distinction was positioned to demonstrate that the settlement proposal does not undermine the legal standards set by the court.

The third point Rispoli underscored in his response is Ripple’s assertion that it was uniquely targeted by the SEC before the agency’s broader enforcement campaign against other digital asset companies. He noted that Ripple highlighted its early involvement with the SEC as a factor that led to its protracted litigation, unlike other firms that have resolved their cases more quickly or received favorable discretionary treatment from the regulator. The supplemental filing cites recent changes within the SEC, including the creation of a dedicated crypto task force and a renewed approach to rulemaking in the digital assets space. Ripple used this context to justify its request for the court to acknowledge the proposed settlement terms, which aim to resolve the case while aligning Ripple with other industry participants whose disputes have already concluded.

While Rispoli expressed some disappointment in the force of Ripple’s arguments, he concluded that the filing was meaningful and could influence the court’s approach. He remarked that although the submission was not overwhelmingly persuasive, it nonetheless instilled a greater sense of optimism about a possible resolution. In his view, Ripple’s effort to formally address these three legal and procedural gaps might be sufficient to move the process toward closure.