Ripple: Judge's settlement rejection has no effect on legal victory

Ripple’s legal victory over the SEC, announced on March 19th, 2025, faced a procedural setback on May 15th. Judge Analisa Torres rejected a joint motion by Ripple and the SEC for an indicative ruling on their proposed settlement, deeming the motion “procedurally improper.” This rejection, however, does not overturn Ripple’s win, according to Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty. Alderoty clarified that the court’s decision relates to procedural issues concerning the dismissal of Ripple’s cross-appeal, not the core ruling on XRP’s status as a security.

The court’s document highlights the SEC and Ripple’s failure to file the correct motion to support their proposed settlement and vacate the injunction, particularly regarding the substantial reduction of the initial $125 million fine. The court noted the lack of addressing the “heavy burden” required to justify such a reduction. The parties agreed to lower this fine before Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse declared the case closed; Alderoty subsequently revealed the SEC will retain $50 million.

This procedural snag has caused community dissatisfaction due to a lack of specific information from Ripple regarding the procedural errors. Alderoty’s assurances that Ripple and the SEC remain in agreement to resolve the case have been met with skepticism, particularly given his previous statements about the case’s closure. Community members criticized the lack of transparency surrounding the procedural issues, demanding further explanation of the filing errors. Speculation arose about potential misrepresentation regarding the case’s conclusion.

The situation unfolded against a backdrop of online reports alleging a Ripple-linked lobbyist manipulated US President Donald Trump into considering XRP for a national cryptocurrency reserve. This has further fueled criticism, especially within the Bitcoin community, which opposes Ripple’s advocacy for a multi-coin reserve strategy. The ongoing developments underscore the complexities of legal processes and the importance of clear communication, even after apparent victories.