XRP News Today: Judge Rejects Ripple SEC Settlement Bid Over Procedural Deficiencies

In a pivotal turn of events in the protracted legal dispute between Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres has rejected a joint motion submitted by both parties. This motion, filed in 2025, aimed to prematurely conclude the case and adjust the penalties involved. Specifically, it sought to dissolve a permanent injunction that limits Ripple’s institutional sales of XRP and to reduce the $125 million civil penalty imposed on Ripple to $50 million. However, Judge Torres denied the request, citing procedural deficiencies and the lack of compelling reasons to alter the court’s previous decisions.

The judge’s ruling highlighted the importance of adhering to established legal standards, particularly Rule 60(b), which governs the modification of final judgments. The court determined that Ripple and the SEC did not provide the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify reopening or changing the judgment. Additionally, the motion did not sufficiently explain how such changes would benefit the public interest, especially considering the court’s earlier findings that Ripple’s institutional sales of XRP violated securities laws, while programmatic retail sales did not.

This decision maintains the current legal landscape, keeping the injunction and the full penalty amount in place. It also indicates that the lawsuit will continue through the standard legal process rather than through an expedited settlement. The case, which commenced in 2020 with the SEC alleging that Ripple conducted unregistered securities sales through XRP, remains unresolved as appeals persist. The denial of the joint request represents a setback for both Ripple and the SEC’s attempts to swiftly resolve the dispute with reduced penalties.

Judge Torres’s ruling emphasizes the court’s dedication to procedural integrity and finality in legal judgments, reinforcing that any modifications to such rulings must meet rigorous criteria. The ongoing litigation is closely monitored as a landmark case in cryptocurrency regulation and enforcement, with significant implications for the broader digital asset industry.