XRP News Today: XRP Advocate Critiques Ripple vs. SEC Legal Filings

Prominent attorney and vocal XRP advocate John Deaton shared an in-depth critique regarding the latest legal filings in the Ripple vs. SEC case, particularly addressing the tone and substance of the arguments presented. Deaton clarified that his analysis was not aimed at discrediting the lawyers involved, but instead focused on what he believed was missing from the recent motion. He emphasized that his critique should not be interpreted as a call for deference or excessive flattery toward Judge Analisa Torres.

Deaton expressed disappointment that the SEC did not acknowledge prior overreach in its enforcement actions against crypto firms. He believed the SEC could have benefited from recognizing how past leadership had engaged in aggressive tactics, citing judicial rebukes such as the appellate court’s finding of “arbitrary and capricious” actions and the sanctions imposed on SEC attorneys in the Debt Box case. He also referenced Judge Sarah Netburn’s prior comment that SEC lawyers “lacked faithful allegiance to the law” in the Ripple proceedings. From Deaton’s perspective, a more effective argument would have included some recognition of these developments. He thinks the SEC had an opportunity to demonstrate an evolution in its stance by referencing these prior legal setbacks and using them as context for supporting the relief request.

Deaton also believed that Ripple’s legal team, which includes a former SEC Director of Enforcement, could have done more to explain the real-world implications of continuing to operate under a potential injunction. He noted that the pending legislative developments—such as the Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act and the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act—constitute exceptional circumstances that could be relevant to the court’s decision-making. According to him, this legislative context and its implications for business competitiveness were not fully brought forward. He added that Ripple is disadvantaged as long as an injunction hangs over it, particularly when compared to competitors like Circle, which operate without such legal restrictions. Financial institutions and corporate partners tend to favor legal certainty, and Ripple’s position could be weakened if these risks are not removed.

Ultimately, Deaton summarized that the legal argument seemed to lean on the political shift following the U.S. presidential election, rather than offering a robust rationale that would meet the court’s standards for reconsidering a prior decision. He suggested that merely referencing a couple of case precedents was insufficient and that the legal team appeared to be assuming the judge would be willing to reverse her earlier position based on minimal legal reasoning. Deaton closed by acknowledging that his expectations might reflect a lack of experience in such high-level legal proceedings. Nevertheless, he indicated that he had anticipated a more detailed and strategic approach aimed at persuading a judge who believes her prior ruling aligns with existing law. He concluded his post by encouraging followers to tune in the next day for an objective breakdown of both the arguments for and against granting the requested relief. He also noted that CryptoLawUS would follow up with a poll regarding the likely outcome.