XRP Lawsuit Update: Ruling Now Expected After July, Lawyer Says

Key Insights:

• XRP lawsuit judgment delayed; lawyers predict no ruling before July.
• SEC must admit faults and revise stance on XRP harm.
• XRP price falls 4% after Judge Torres denies procedural motion.

The timeline for a final ruling in the XRP lawsuit between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been pushed past July, according to multiple legal experts following the case. Lawyers John Deaton and Fred Rispoli outlined the procedural hurdles now delaying any resolution.

XRP Lawsuit Ruling Faces Fresh Delay After Court Denial

On May 16, Judge Analisa Torres rejected a joint motion from Ripple and the SEC seeking an indicative ruling in the XRP lawsuit. She ruled the motion was “procedurally improper,” dismissing the attempt to amend the prior judgment under current terms.

Fred Rispoli commented on X that the decision likely delays the case to “July at the earliest.” He added that both sides must now refile under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceed.

XRP lawyer John Deaton said the SEC would need to concede that Ripple’s XRP sales didn’t harm investors. He explained that the injunction issued against Ripple limits its U.S. business, including institutional XRP transactions.

Deaton also noted that the SEC would have to cite active crypto legislation in Congress to justify a pivot in regulatory stance. That includes reclassifying XRP as more commodity-like, stepping away from previous claims that the token qualifies as a security.

Legal Experts Outline Steps Required for New Judgment

Rispoli elaborated on the procedural path forward. He stated that the parties must file a 25-page motion detailing previous cases dropped by the SEC. Additionally, the agency should provide declarations from its commissioners acknowledging prior failures in crypto regulation.

“It could take at least two to three weeks for both sides to draft and file the new motion,” Rispoli said. Judge Torres would then require another one to two weeks to issue a decision, further extending the case timeline.

The original injunction, Rispoli emphasized, was not part of Judge Torres’ initial summary judgment but was added later upon the SEC’s request. That injunction barred Ripple from selling XRP to institutional clients within the U.S. without SEC oversight.

Meanwhile, legal expert Bill Morgan raised six legal questions that must be addressed before the court could consider any amended judgment. These include whether the SEC needs another commissioner vote and whether Rule 60 procedures adequately allow the court to revise final orders.

XRP Price Dips as Market Reacts to Legal Setback

XRP traded at around $2.37 at the time of writing, down 2% over the past 24 hours and over 6% since Judge Torres’ ruling. The price drop reflects renewed investor uncertainty surrounding the lawsuit’s conclusion.

Crypto influencer Jungle Inc argued on X that the injunction, added at the SEC’s request, should be removed if it leads to a broader settlement. However, former SEC official Marc Fagel responded that the court had determined Ripple’s liability and acted within its discretion when granting the injunction.

“The court heard the evidence and agreed that Ripple should be enjoined,” Fagel said. He added that the legal process now seeks to reassess that conclusion based on evolving policy considerations.

XRP community members remain divided. Some believe the SEC’s shifting stance signals an upcoming settlement, while others see the court’s procedural rigidity as a barrier to fast resolution.

Whether the XRP lawsuit concludes this summer depends on the SEC’s willingness to reverse course. John Deaton stressed that Judge Torres would only consider a revised motion if it serves the public interest.

According to the court’s guidance, any consent decree must be “fair and reasonable” and not disserve the broader public good. Without clear alignment between Ripple and the SEC—and acknowledgment of previous missteps—the court is unlikely to entertain another premature motion.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and provides no financial, investment, or other advice. The author or any people mentioned in this article are not responsible for any financial loss that may occur from investing in or trading. Please do your research before making any financial decisions.