<\/p>\n
A federal judge has rejected Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission\u2019s joint motion to set aside the $125 million penalty and final ruling on institutional XRP sales, despite both parties having reached a settlement.<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres also denied the motion seeking to lift the permanent injunction on Ripple\u2019s institutional XRP (XRP) sales, which the court imposed in 2024, according to Reuters<\/a>.<\/p>\n The court ruled that Ripple and the SEC cannot use their settlement agreement to reverse the order imposing a permanent injunction against the company\u2019s institutional XRP sales.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Ripple\/SEC motion marks the second attempt before the court to bring a legal close to the long-running case.<\/p>\n In addition to the prohibition on XRP sales to institutional investors, Ripple and the SEC had asked the court to approve a settlement in which the SEC would retain $50 million and return $75 million of the $125 million civil penalty. Notably, both parties also asked the court to pause their appeal of the final judgment pending the outcome of this motion.<\/p>\n In 2023, Judge Torres ruled that XRP sold on exchanges did not violate securities laws\u2014meaning the cryptocurrency is not a security. However, she found that institutional sales did violate securities laws, leading to the injunction and civil penalty imposed in August 2024.<\/p>\n Ripple and the SEC appealed the ruling, with a settlement reached in March 2025 that could only proceed if the judge agreed to set aside her earlier decision.<\/p>\n Judge Torres rejected the latest motion, stating that it did not meet the \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d required for a court to modify or vacate a final judgment. A similar motion<\/a> filed on June 12, 2025, requesting an \u201cindicative ruling,\u201d also failed to persuade the court.<\/p>\n Arguments that the SEC has dismissed similar or related crypto cases also do not apply to the Ripple versus SEC case, as those other lawsuits did not go all the way to a final ruling.<\/p>\n \u201cThe parties do not have the authority to agree not to be bound by a court\u2019s final judgment that a party violated an Act of Congress in such a manner that a permanent injunction and a civil penalty were necessary to prevent that party from violating the law again,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Under the ruling, Ripple and the SEC may now choose to either withdraw their appeal or proceed with it and challenge the injunction.<\/p>\nJudge denies yet another Ripple\/SEC motion<\/h2>\n
Parties \u201chave no authority\u201d<\/h2>\n
\n