BREAKING: Ripple vs SEC Takes Dramatic Turn as Both Sides Demand Relief Overhaul

The XRP lawsuit just got spicy—Ripple and the SEC are now locked in a high-stakes game of legal chicken over relief terms. Forget 'settlement'—this is full-on trench warfare with billion-dollar implications.

Subheader: Why This Move Changes Everything

Both parties filed simultaneous motions to amend remedies, signaling neither will blink. The SEC wants tougher penalties; Ripple's pushing for restraint. A judge now holds the fate of XRP's liquidity—and by extension, the entire altcoin market's regulatory playbook.

Subheader: The Hidden Win for Crypto

Every legal skirmish like this forces clearer rules. While Wall Street hedge funds bet against volatility, crypto's real victory? Establishing that digital assets won't be bullied into obsolescence by bureaucratic slow-walking.

Closing thought: If history repeats, the SEC will spend $10M in taxpayer money to 'protect investors' from an asset that's already up 200% this year. Your move, Gensler.

TLDR

• Ripple and the SEC have jointly filed a motion to modify the court’s previous remedies in the XRP lawsuit.
• The court had earlier ruled that Ripple conducted unregistered securities sales and imposed a $125 million penalty.
• Ripple is seeking the removal of an injunction while confirming it would still comply with securities laws.
• Legal experts suggest both Ripple and the SEC are contributing to the delay in resolving the XRP lawsuit.
• The SEC’s earlier appeal has influenced Ripple to seek broader changes in the legal outcome.

Ripple and the U.S. SEC have jointly filed a motion seeking an indicative ruling to modify the court’s remedies. The XRP lawsuit has now entered a new phase, focusing on adjustments to previous penalties and injunctions. Both parties seek to end the prolonged litigation by revisiting terms while considering ongoing legal risks.

Ripple and SEC Push for Indicative Ruling in XRP Lawsuit

Ripple and the SEC submitted a joint motion aiming to alter the court’s initial ruling in the XRP lawsuit. The court previously imposed a $125 million penalty on Ripple for unregistered XRP sales, classifying them as securities. The motion reflects an effort to align Ripple’s case with other resolved crypto-related enforcement actions.

In addition to the motion, Ripple filed a supplemental letter stating compliance WOULD remain mandatory, regardless of an injunction’s status. The letter supports reducing the penalty and potentially dissolving the injunction, which currently bars further securities violations. Ripple claims the settlement would still uphold securities law obligations while mitigating prolonged legal consequences.

Marc Fagel, a former SEC official, explained that the court had already issued its judgment, holding Ripple liable for violations. He emphasized that the current motion aims to modify relief, not question liability. This aligns with both parties attempting to conclude the XRP lawsuit while minimizing appeal-related risks.

She did. She found Ripple illegally raised hundreds of millions of dollars from unregistered securities sales, penalized them $125m, and enjoined them from further violations. But now the SEC and Ripple are trying to get her to change the remedies she ordered.

— Marc Fagel (@Marc_Fagel) June 20, 2025

Legal Experts Highlight Role of Both Parties in Delay

According to Marc Fagel, both Ripple and the SEC are responsible for prolonging the XRP lawsuit by pursuing changes to court-ordered remedies. He confirmed that Judge Analisa Torres had already ruled against Ripple for unlawfully selling XRP as unregistered securities. Despite the ruling, both sides now seek to reshape those outcomes through judicial approval.

Legal experts support Ripple’s position that dissolving the injunction would reflect fairness, especially after the SEC’s selective dismissals in similar cases. Ripple aims to match the treatment of other crypto firms, arguing for equal application of enforcement standards. The SEC, under new leadership, is not opposing the motion but cooperating in revising the remedy structure.

Fagel further clarified that the charges were originally brought under the Clayton administration and are now under Gensler’s oversight. He also addressed misconceptions, asserting the SEC has not intentionally caused delays. The XRP lawsuit continues to await judicial input on whether the proposed relief changes will be granted.

SEC Appeal Strategy Impacts Ripple’s Legal Approach

Ripple’s legal strategy reportedly shifted after the SEC filed an appeal against part of the earlier ruling in the XRP lawsuit. Attorney Bill Morgan suggested this appeal pushed Ripple to seek broader changes, including dissolving the injunction. Without the appeal, Ripple might have accepted the court’s penalty and moved forward.

Morgan emphasized that Ripple’s motivation stems from new enforcement trends under the SEC, which encouraged a more assertive settlement approach. He stated that Ripple might have agreed to the earlier terms if the SEC had not appealed. The current motion represents a response to this evolving legal dynamic.

Legal observers note the court now holds the key to resolving the XRP lawsuit. Approval of the joint motion could finalize the matter in weeks. Until then, the legal process remains active, and a decision on the relief modification is pending.