XRP News Today: Ripple's Legal Strategy Causes Delay in SEC Case

The ongoing legal battle between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken a revealing turn. According to prominent legal expert Bill Morgan, the delay in finalizing the case is not due to the SEC, as many in the XRP community have assumed. Instead, Ripple itself is the source of the holdup.

Responding to a post by a user named Bale, who claimed the SEC was dragging its feet on settlement, Morgan firmly disagreed. He stated that Ripple is the source of the delay because it wants the injunction dissolved. Morgan added that both parties would have settled months ago if not for Ripple’s insistence on having the injunction removed. This insight offers rare clarity into the behind-the-scenes legal maneuvering, revealing that Ripple’s legal strategy—rather than SEC resistance—is the main reason the case remains unresolved.

The injunction at the center of this delay stems from Judge Analisa Torres’ July 2023 ruling. In her decision, she found that Ripple’s past institutional sales of XRP violated securities laws, even though she concluded that XRP itself is not a security when traded on secondary markets. Ripple is now seeking to have that injunction lifted. Doing so would allow the company greater freedom in how it uses XRP in institutional settings, particularly within its On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) services. It would also reduce the likelihood of future enforcement actions from the SEC regarding its enterprise XRP offerings.

This legal push, however, is adding new layers of complexity to the final stages of the case. While many assumed the SEC was holding up the process, Morgan emphasized that the agency is cooperating in Ripple’s effort to have the injunction removed. His comment reframes the narrative and directs attention to Ripple’s strategic legal positioning rather than bureaucratic delay.

Following Morgan’s post, XRP community members reacted with a mix of curiosity and concern. One user asked if the dissolving of the injunction was necessary. Morgan responded succinctly: “Ripple needs it, not XRP investors.” This distinction is key. While removing the injunction could be essential for Ripple’s business operations and long-term growth, it does not directly affect the legal status of XRP in secondary markets. Judge Torres’ ruling already provided the clarity that most XRP holders were hoping for, declaring that programmatic and secondary sales of XRP do not constitute securities transactions.

Morgan’s response highlights that Ripple’s current legal strategy is tailored to its corporate needs, not necessarily those of everyday investors. Yet that strategy could still bring long-term benefits to the ecosystem if it allows Ripple to operate with fewer legal restrictions.

Ripple has filed a motion seeking an indicative ruling that would allow the court to reconsider and potentially dissolve the injunction. A decision on that motion is expected soon, as Judge Torres reviews the most recent submissions from both parties. Once the issue of the injunction is resolved, the court can move forward with the remedies phase of the case, which will determine financial penalties and any final compliance measures Ripple must implement. Only then can the case come to a formal close.

Until then, Bill Morgan’s legal analysis makes one thing clear: the delay is not the SEC’s fault. It’s Ripple’s strategic push for a clean legal slate that is keeping the case open.