Unresolved Showdown: The Real Reasons the Ripple vs SEC Battle Drags On in 2025

The courtroom drama between Ripple and the SEC has stretched into its fifth year—while the rest of crypto moved on to the next bull run. Here’s why the stalemate persists.

Legal trench warfare

Both sides dig deeper into discovery disputes, turning procedural skirmishes into a marathon. The SEC keeps demanding internal Slack messages; Ripple’s lawyers bill hours fighting every request.

The XRP paradox

XRP trades at 3x its 2020 price despite the lawsuit—proving either regulatory uncertainty doesn’t matter, or that markets price in eventual victory for Ripple. (Or that traders just love volatility.)

Regulators in no rush

The SEC’s 2025 enforcement docket overfloweth—why settle when you can set precedent? Meanwhile, Ripple’s Asian expansion makes US rulings feel increasingly irrelevant.

Closing thought: Maybe they’ll shake hands when the legal fees hit nine figures—right after Wall Street banks ‘discover’ blockchain.

TLDR

• The Ripple Vs SEC case is delayed due to internal SEC procedures rather than ongoing settlement talks.
• Marc Fagel explained that memo drafting, division reviews, and vote scheduling within the SEC cause the delay.
• The July 17 closed-door SEC meeting did not include any discussion related to the Ripple Vs SEC enforcement action.
• Ripple has already paid the $125 million penalty in cash which does not indicate case closure as the appeal is still pending.
• The SEC’s routine internal processes are extending the timeline and no party is intentionally delaying the Ripple Vs SEC settlement.

The ongoing Ripple vs. SEC legal battle remains unresolved, as internal processes within the SEC reportedly caused the latest delays. Securities lawyer Marc Fagel stated that the holdup stems from procedural steps rather than negotiations. The crypto community continues to speculate on outcomes, but internal reviews appear to be the reason behind the stalled settlement.

Internal Reviews Slow Ripple Vs SEC Case

Recent developments in the Ripple Vs SEC case indicate that the SEC’s internal procedures are delaying the expected settlement resolution. Marc Fagel, a former SEC official, clarified that drafting action memos and scheduling commissioner votes take time. He pointed out that division reviews must also occur before finalizing any enforcement action.

This insight followed public speculation after the closed-door meeting on July 17 did not produce any decision. Fagel asserted that such internal steps are routine and necessary before a vote can be scheduled. Therefore, the timeline depends more on internal clearance than any active negotiations.

That’s not the cause for delay. The staff needs to draft its action memo. It needs to be reviewed by the divisions and calendared for a commissioner vote. But please, keep lecturing a former senior SEC official about SEC procedures.

— Marc Fagel (@Marc_Fagel) July 18, 2025

The SEC typically holds weekly private meetings with the same public agenda, which adds no direct significance to the Ripple Vs SEC case. Fagel emphasized that dismissing rumors is necessary, as the internal timeline can stretch for weeks. The Ripple community’s expectation for an immediate decision remains, but regulatory processes follow established sequences.

XRP Lawsuit Speculations Continue Amid Public Anticipation

Despite Fagel’s explanations, community members continue to anticipate swift developments in the Ripple Vs SEC settlement. Speculation increased after Ripple dismissed its appeal earlier in July, raising hopes of imminent closure. However, Fagel made clear that appeal dismissals do not influence SEC vote scheduling timelines.

Fagel also noted that no evidence suggested the Ripple Vs SEC enforcement action appeared on the commission’s July 17 agenda. He maintained that assigning a specific date to the decision is inaccurate due to procedural requirements. According to Fagel, misinformation could mislead the public and disrupt expectations.

The legal process involves various departments, and each stage adds time before an official decision. While anticipation continues to grow, procedural accuracy remains the dominant factor in the delay. These statements reflect a clearer picture of how federal processes dictate enforcement case timelines.

Ripple Payment and Misconceptions Over Case Closure

Marc Fagel recently addressed confusion surrounding Ripple’s $125 million penalty payment, which was made in cash, not XRP. This payment, however, does not indicate the conclusion of the Ripple Vs SEC lawsuit, as the appeal remains a crucial element. Without resolving the appeal component, the case cannot formally close.

Fagel clarified that Ripple’s cash payment fulfills one requirement but does not bypass other settlement conditions. Hence, the delay persists even though Ripple complied financially. This detail further weakens assumptions that either party is stalled in the case.

The former SEC official reinforced that no entity is intentionally delaying the Ripple Vs SEC resolution. Internal scheduling and legal procedures must proceed step by step before final closure.