Ripple XRP Lawsuit Delay Blamed on Ripple’s Failed Strategy

Key Points

• Ripple XRP Lawsuit Delay Blamed on Ripple’s Failed Strategy
• Judge rejected Ripple’s push to vacate the injunction and reduce penalties
• Former SEC official clarifies delays came from Ripple, not the SEC
• Final case resolution expected by August 15, 2025

Ripple’s legal saga with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has captured the attention of the crypto world for years.

Many believed the SEC was at fault for stalling the outcome. But new insights from former SEC regional director Marc Fagel flip the narrative.

According to Fagel, Ripple itself caused much of the delay. The firm attempted to renegotiate key aspects of the judgment, specifically asking the court to vacate an existing injunction and reduce the $125 million penalty.

This effort was tied to the belief that new SEC leadership, after the 2024 elections, might be more lenient.

“The parties originally tried to settle the case on terms that made dismissing the appeals contingent on the court vacating the injunction and reducing the penalty,” Fagel posted on X (formerly Twitter). “The court refused. So they had to restart the process.”

In other words: Had Ripple simply accepted the court’s remedies, the appeals would have been dismissed months ago along with the other pending crypto litigation, and the case would be over. But the parties tried a different approach. It failed. And here we are.

— Marc Fagel (@Marc_Fagel) August 5, 2025

That refusal effectively reset the legal process. Ripple’s move backfired, leading to continued litigation that extended well past the expected March 2025 resolution.

These settlement talks were meant to streamline the outcome. But when the court declined Ripple’s terms, it forced both sides back into procedural motions and appeal processes, drawing the case out for several additional months.

As legal uncertainty surrounds major crypto firms, it mirrors other compliance-focused tensions like those seen in the North Korean NFT hack, where global scrutiny on crypto exploits is intensifying.

In the newest saga of SEC v. Ripple, I don’t like this filing based on how obvious it was from Judge Torres’ last ruling that she was pissed. I recommended a long, detailed motion explaining the SEC’s failures in crypto regulation (with Commissioner declarations) and some… https://t.co/KTyiqxLnWo

— Fred Rispoli (@freddyriz) June 12, 2025

SEC vs Ripple enters final chapter as August 15 nears

The case, which began in December 2020, has seen many twists. The most recent came when Ripple and the SEC jointly filed for more time to address the court’s concerns, weeks before they agreed to withdraw their cross-appeals.

Legal analysts noted this move seemed half-hearted, with filings that didn’t respond to judicial demands. This indicated a lack of momentum from both sides and signaled that a resolution was near.

The primary issue stems from a Gensler-era injunction. The SEC, under former Chair Gary Gensler, prohibited Ripple from selling XRP to non-institutional investors without SEC registration.

Ripple hoped the new leadership, Paul Atkins, appointed after the 2024 U.S. elections, would shift the agency’s stance. But courts don’t operate on political winds alone.

I had an exchange with another ex-SEC attorney who was unsure if another vote was needed?

— bill morgan (@Belisarius2020) August 4, 2025

While new leadership may favor different crypto policies, federal court decisions remain binding. Ripple’s effort to escape previous rulings through settlement failed, locking in the injunction and fine.

The SEC has until August 15, 2025, to formally respond to Ripple’s withdrawal of appeals. If no further legal actions are taken, the $125 million penalty, already held in escrow, will be sent to the U.S. Treasury.

The legal chess game mirrors broader regulatory shifts in the U.S., such as the growing push around crypto ETF approval rules and the SEC’s changing stance on in-kind ETFs and crypto classification, which could significantly impact future enforcement actions.

There was a (very small) chance the original approval vote encompassed dismissal even without the modification of the injunctive order. Given the delay, seems pretty clear that was not the case, so we’re presumably still waiting on another vote.

— Marc Fagel (@Marc_Fagel) August 4, 2025

Ripple’s Legal Risk Remains Despite Resolution

Although the end of litigation is in sight, the outcome doesn’t favor Ripple in a meaningful way.

Despite public belief that Ripple might be exonerated, the facts remain unchanged: a federal court has already found that Ripple’s institutional sales of XRP violated securities laws.

This part of the ruling is settled law, and as Fagel noted, “They’re not going to be ‘cleared.’” The court determined that Ripple raised hundreds of millions of dollars through unregistered securities offerings, an outcome that cannot be reversed through procedural closures or new SEC leadership.

What’s more, Ripple’s current restrictions remain legally binding unless explicitly overturned, which hasn’t happened. The injunction still prevents Ripple from selling XRP to the public without prior SEC approval or registration.

The only resolution coming on August 15 is procedural closure. It marks the end of the litigation process but not a clearing of Ripple’s record.

The penalty will be enforced, the injunction stays, and Ripple remains a cautionary tale for crypto firms navigating U.S. securities laws.

As community trust remains fragile, Ripple’s legal stumble echoes recent controversies, like the ZachXBT vs. Kaito drama that raised red flags around crypto project transparency, or speculative tokens like TROLL meme coin that highlight how hype often overshadows legal compliance.

That said, the conclusion of the Ripple XRP lawsuit could help reset the conversation for future crypto regulation in the U.S. With a new SEC Chair and an evolving legal landscape, industry players are watching closely to see whether this case will influence future enforcement priorities.

For now, though, Ripple’s legal gamble delayed the inevitable, and reminded the industry that legal strategy must align with judicial expectations, not political shifts.