BREAKING: Judge Shuts Down SEC and Ripple’s Latest Attempt to Reduce Penalty—Crypto Wins Again

The courtroom drama between Ripple and the SEC just got juicier. A US judge just slammed the door on both parties’ second attempt to tweak the penalty terms—keeping the crypto world on edge.

No compromises, no shortcuts. The ruling sends a clear message: play by the rules or pay the price. Meanwhile, Wall Street lawyers are probably billing overtime.

Another day, another regulatory skirmish—but this time, the gavel fell in favor of clarity. Whether that’s good or bad for XRP holders? Well, that’s crypto for you.

Why the Ripple-SEC motion was rejected

In the court filing, the court found that the parties failed to meet the stringent requirements to alter a final judgment.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, changes to a final ruling demand extraordinary circumstances. In this instance, the court saw no such justification.

Judge Torres reaffirmed that Ripple had already been found violating federal securities laws, with a demonstrated likelihood of continued misconduct.

She emphasized that the original ruling was about upholding public interest and deterring future violations, and not just penalizing Ripple.

The judge also rejected the idea that a final ruling could be vacated simply because both parties had agreed to settle.

Citing Supreme Court precedent, she stressed that judicial decisions, especially those concerning federal law, are matters of public interest and not subject to private agreement alone.

According to Judge Torres:

“The Supreme Court has emphasized, however, that the judgment of a court is “not merely the property of private litigants. It is a final judgment that belongs ‘to the legal community as a whole’ and ‘should stand unless a court concludes that the public interest WOULD be served by a vacatur.'”

Judge Torres further stressed that the case extends beyond Ripple and the SEC.

According to her, the penalty and injunction serve broader regulatory goals: protecting investors, maintaining market integrity, and reinforcing compliance within the crypto space.

The ruling also highlighted that Ripple’s actions were not minor or inadvertent but marked by willful violations over an extended period.

She concluded that neither Ripple’s intent to settle nor the SEC’s willingness to compromise could override the need for accountability.