XRP News Today: Ripple vs SEC: Expert Suggests Federal Intervention Could Reverse Judge's Decision

In the ongoing legal dispute between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), legal expert Ashley Prosper has highlighted specific conditions that could prompt Judge Analisa Torres to reverse her previous decision. Recently, Judge Torres rejected a joint request from both parties for an “indicative ruling” that would have allowed settlement discussions to proceed under revised terms. The proposed settlement aimed to replace the previously ordered $125 million penalty and permanent injunction against Ripple with a $50 million fine and no injunction. The rejection was not based on the content of the agreement but on procedural issues in the request.

Prosper suggests that certain high-level interventions or disclosures could alter the case's trajectory, potentially leading Judge Torres to vacate her prior judgment. One such possibility is the submission of confidential evidence showing that XRP holds strategic relevance to the federal government. This could include classified documentation from agencies such as the U.S. Treasury or the Department of Justice (DOJ). For example, internal memos indicating XRP’s potential role in a proposed national digital currency infrastructure, or security assessments warning that the continuation of the lawsuit could negatively affect financial or diplomatic stability, could compel the court to reconsider. Such materials would likely be presented under seal due to their sensitive nature. Courts sometimes adjust or vacate rulings when matters of national interest are credibly demonstrated, particularly if high-ranking government agencies are involved.

Another pathway to reconsideration, Prosper added, would be direct involvement from the federal executive branch. If entities like the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve were to submit an amicus curiae brief urging the court to reconsider its position, this could introduce significant legal weight. These agencies might argue that XRP plays a critical role in the national or international financial system. The court could apply the principle of Chevron deference, which allows judicial bodies to give weight to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous legislative provisions, especially in matters falling within their expertise. Although infrequent, similar interventions have led to judicial reversals in past financial and regulatory cases.

If either classified documentation or federal agency participation redefines XRP as essential to government financial strategy, Judge Torres could vacate her original ruling. Such a decision could mark a shift in how XRP is legally classified and utilized, potentially positioning it as a key tool in national financial infrastructure rather than a conventional crypto asset. Nevertheless, some voices within the cryptocurrency community have expressed skepticism, arguing that the scenarios proposed are largely speculative and improbable. Despite this, Prosper maintains that these legal avenues remain viable, depending on the direction taken by both Ripple and the U.S. government in the coming months.