Judge Torres’ Bold Move: Why the XRP Lawsuit Charges Ahead Despite Settlement Rumors

SEC vs. Ripple takes another twist as Judge Analisa Torres refuses to hit pause—even with backroom deal talks swirling. Here’s why the crypto world’s watching every motion.

The gavel drops—hard

No cozy settlements here. Torres’ courtroom stays open for business, signaling she’s not buying the ‘we’re working it out’ narrative. Legal eagles whisper this could force SEC’s hand to show its cards sooner.

XRP army holds breath

Ripple’s native token seesaws on every filing—because nothing says ‘stable investment’ like a coin that moonwalks 10% on a single judge’s eyebrow raise. Traders now treat court docs like technical analysis.

Regulators gonna regulate (slowly)

Three years in and the SEC still hasn’t decided if crypto is a security, a commodity, or just a really annoying Excel spreadsheet. Meanwhile, Wall Street quietly buys the dip—hypocrisy at its finest.

Torres’ call keeps the pressure on both sides to stop posturing and put up real arguments. Because in crypto, the only thing more volatile than prices? Regulatory clarity.

TLDR

• Judge Analisa Torres did not dismiss the XRP lawsuit due to Ripple’s unregistered institutional sales.
• Former SEC lawyer Marc Fagel stated that the court acted based on Ripple’s violation of securities laws.
• Ripple agreed to pay a $50 million penalty and withdrew its appeal after the joint motion was rejected.
• Legal experts clarified that the ruling impacts current and future XRP sales, not just past transactions.
• Judge Torres has no further role as the SEC must finalize its dismissal of the appeal to conclude the case.

Judge Analisa Torres did not drop the XRP Lawsuit despite Ripple’s motions, intensifying debates within the crypto community. The case saw a sharp turn when Ripple accepted a $50 million penalty, avoiding further appeals. Still, former SEC lawyer Marc Fagel explained why the case remained intact despite the recent developments.

Ripple had raised large amounts through institutional XRP sales, which the court identified as unregistered securities transactions. Therefore, Judge Torres had legal grounds to continue the XRP Lawsuit and did not terminate it prematurely. According to Fagel, courts act on findings, not opinions, and Ripple’s sales constituted clear regulatory violations.

Probably because she found that Ripple illegally raised hundreds of millions of dollars from unregistered securities sales. So why WOULD she "drop" it (whatever that means)?

— Marc Fagel (@Marc_Fagel) June 29, 2025

Ripple’s defense and the SEC had filed a joint motion, which Judge Torres rejected without commentary on Ethereum. This created further uncertainty among observers and legal experts monitoring the XRP Lawsuit. Fagel emphasized that judges cannot address assets not directly related to the specific litigation.

XRP Lawsuit Stays Amid Legal Findings

Ripple’s institutional XRP sales played a central role in the continuation of the XRP Lawsuit, as these were deemed securities offerings. The court’s ruling did not question all XRP transactions but focused on institutional dealings violating securities laws. As a result, Ripple now faces limits or regulatory compliance for similar future transactions.

Ripple withdrew its appeal and accepted a $50 million fine after the joint proposal was rejected. This decision marked a strategic end to the trial phase while admitting to regulatory concerns raised in the XRP Lawsuit. The penalty aligns with prior judgments that required enforcement of federal securities rules.

The SEC must now finalize internal procedures before dismissing its appeal, officially closing Judge Torres’ involvement. Fagel confirmed that once the SEC votes and files its decision, the case enters a new phase. Thus, the XRP Lawsuit remains technically open until those final procedural steps are completed.

Legal Experts Clarify Broader Implications of the Ruling

Some community members argued the ruling affected only past sales, but legal experts have refuted this interpretation of the XRP Lawsuit. Attorney Bill Morgan stated that injunctions apply to future conduct, not historical behavior. Consequently, Ripple must now either cease institutional sales or register them under U.S. securities laws.

Judge Torres ruled only on facts presented and did not extend legal opinions beyond XRP’s status in institutional sales. Fagel clarified that Ethereum’s absence from the XRP Lawsuit meant the judge could not comment on its classification. Legal boundaries limited her involvement to the scope defined in the Ripple proceedings.

Ultimately, the XRP Lawsuit reflects continuing enforcement around digital assets and federal compliance standards. Ripple’s decision to settle suggests recognition of the court’s findings and future regulatory challenges. The case outcome may influence how other crypto firms approach compliance and legal strategy.