Legal Expert Weighs in on Why Judge Rejected Ripple and SEC’s Motion in XRP Case
Speculation is mounting over why District Judge Analisa Torres denied a joint effort by Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to amend the final judgment in their XRP case, refusing to ease a $125 million penalty or dissolve a longstanding injunction. Attorney Fred Rispoli addressed the ruling by Judge Torres on social media platform X on June 25, suggesting the court’s decision may have been influenced by personal frustration or political bias. He wrote:
There are only two reasons for this. One, she was pissed that the parties wasted 4.5 years of her time with bitter litigation. This reason is 100% in play.
“Two, she is hostile to the Trump administration and will do what she can to throw up obstacles. This reason is 100% in play for some federal judges (it is no matter who is in charge as there are judges that are political rather than objective),” he added.
Although the court refused to alter its ruling, Rispoli believes the legal fight is nearing an informal conclusion: “SEC claimed it is dropping their appeal but I don’t believe that has been formalized. The SEC has the power to formally drop their appeal and simply not respond to Ripple’s appellate brief (i.e., leaving it unopposed) thereby giving a huge boost to Ripple winning it. I put that happening at 0%. The parties will drop their appeals, settle at $50M and move on with the injunction in place.”
Addressing the court decision’s impact on XRP and the potential for XRP exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to gain approval, he said:
Regarding that injunction, it doesn’t affect XRP on the secondary markets nor will it impact XRP ETF approvals.
Judge Torres stated in her order that neither party had demonstrated the “extraordinary circumstances” required to overturn a final judgment. She emphasized that only an appellate court—not a post-judgment agreement—can lawfully remove a penalty or injunction. While Ripple had argued its business model had changed, the judge found no legal basis to void the earlier decision.
