Why Judge Torres Said No to Ripple vs SEC Lawsuit Settlement
The post Why Judge Torres Said No to Ripple vs SEC Lawsuit Settlement appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News
Judge Analisa Torres has denied a joint motion filed by Ripple and the SEC — a move that’s now triggering deep conversations across the XRP community. Despite both parties seemingly on the same page for once, the court made it clear—there are no shortcuts when it comes to justice.
Let’s break down what happened and why the judge blocked their attempt to move forward quietly.
Ripple SEC Joint Motion DeniedRipple and the SEC, who have battled in court for years over XRP’s legal status, recently teamed up to ask Judge Torres to approve two key changes to their case: first remove the long-standing injunction, and second reduce Ripple’s penalty from $125 million down to $50 million.
While the request came as a surprise to many, it was seen as a joint attempt to wrap things up early and cleanly.
However, the judge wasn’t on board. She denied the request, stating that she cannot comment on or undo any part of the final judgment while the appeal is still active
In essence, she made it clear, “You don’t get to erase a final judgment just because you’re now friends.”
The ask was BIG:
Cancel the permanent injunction Cut Ripple’s $125 million penalty by more than 60%
Yes, Ripple and the SEC — two courtroom adversaries — came to the judge with a handshake and a proposal.
But Judge Torres said:
“You don’t get to erase a final…
Ripple and the SEC tried using a rarely granted legal option under Rule 60(b)(6), which allows for changes to a final judgment in extraordinary cases. But Judge Torres rejected this, pointing to Ripple’s earlier behavior—deliberate violations of securities laws, continued misconduct, and a lack of accountability.
In her words, Ripple had shown no convincing sign of changing, and the existing injunction was still necessary to protect investors.
She made it clear, no shortcuts will be allowed while the case is still on appeal.
[post_titles_links postid=”475460″]Quoting a past U.S. Supreme Court decision, Judge Torres reminded both parties that a final court ruling belongs to the legal system, not just those involved. Courts are not tools for convenience, and legal decisions cannot be quietly erased even when both sides want to move on.
Speculation Over Ripple SEC Allies?XRP supporters raise a bigger question: Why did Ripple and the SEC suddenly act like allies? Some believe both parties are preparing for something bigger—possibly a major shift in how digital assets will be used globally.
With stablecoins launching, central bank digital currencies emerging, and even XRP ETF applications underway in Canada and Asia, the timing of this legal pushback feels significant.
With the motion denied, the judge’s message is clear: settlements must happen in the open, and legal shortcuts won’t be tolerated.
[article_inside_subscriber_shortcode title=”Never Miss a Beat in the Crypto World!” description=”Stay ahead with breaking news, expert analysis, and real-time updates on the latest trends in Bitcoin, altcoins, DeFi, NFTs, and more.” category_name=”News” category_id=”6″] FAQs Why did Judge Torres deny the joint Ripple-SEC motion for settlement?Judge Torres denied the motion because a final court judgment cannot be reversed or altered via private settlement while an appeal is active. She also cited Ripple’s prior violations and lack of demonstrated change.
How does the judge’s denial affect Ripple’s legal strategy moving forward?The denial means Ripple must either proceed with its appeal of the injunction (and the $125M penalty) or withdraw it, thereby accepting the judge’s existing rulings. It closes the door on a swift, private settlement to alter the final judgment.
Could this ruling influence future negotiations between regulators and crypto firms?Yes, this ruling sets a precedent that courts may not easily allow private settlements to override final judgments, especially where public interest and investor protection are concerned. It signals that regulators and firms must engage through proper legal channels, like appeals, to challenge or alter final court decisions.