Ripple Reasserts XRP’s Legal Status After Court Upholds Penalty
Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty publicly addressed District Judge Analisa Torres’ rejection of a joint motion with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), reaffirming XRP’s regulatory status and outlining Ripple’s planned response. Posted on social media platform X on June 26, Alderoty’s comments followed Judge Torres’ ruling, which left a $125 million civil penalty and a related injunction against Ripple unchanged.
The Ripple legal chief stated:
With this, the ball is back in our court. The Court gave us two options: dismiss our appeal challenging the finding on historic institutional sales—or press forward with the appeal. Stay tuned.
Torres’ ruling declined to vacate the final judgment, stating that the involved parties had not demonstrated the “exceptional circumstances” necessary to modify a conclusive order. The judge refused to alter the judgment or eliminate the permanent injunction and penalty imposed under the Securities Act, affirming that finalized decisions are not subject to renegotiation through private agreement. “The parties do not have the authority to agree not to be bound by a court’s final judgment … the parties must show exceptional circumstances that outweigh the public interest or the administration of justice … They have not come close to doing so here,” Judge Torres explained.
Reaffirming XRP’s classification, Alderoty clarified that the judgment does not alter existing legal interpretations. He emphasized:
Either way, XRP’s legal status as not a security remains unchanged. In the meantime, it’s business as usual.
Speculation has surfaced across digital forums regarding Torres’s rationale. Attorney Fred Rispoli, for example, suggested that the court’s decision may have been influenced by personal frustration or political bias. Litigation between Ripple and the SEC, initiated in 2020, continues to serve as a key reference point in U.S. crypto regulation. The outcome is widely regarded as a potential precedent for how courts may define the boundaries of securities law in relation to digital assets.
