Ripple and the SEC seek to end the XRP litigation—A lawyer sees a 70% chance that the judge will approve the request
A leading crypto lawyer predicts a 70% chance that the court will approve Ripple and the SEC's request to dissolve a key injunction and resolve financial penalties.
Ripple and the SEC request a lifting of the injunction—Deaton predicts a 70% chance that the court will approve
Crypto lawyer and advocate John E. Deaton stated on June 13 via the social platform X that in the ongoing legal dispute regarding XRP between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Judge Analisa Torres could grant the company's request to lift the injunction.
Ripple and the SEC jointly submitted a motion requesting an indicative ruling to dissolve a civil injunction that currently limits access to $125 million in seized penalties. Under the proposed terms, $50 million would be directed to the SEC, while the remaining $75 million would be returned to Ripple. The motion reflects a collaborative effort to conclude the long-standing conflict regarding XRP and aims to resolve ongoing legal and financial uncertainties. Deaton stated:
I believe there is a 70% chance she will grant the requested lift.
The lawyer expressed disappointment that Ripple's legal team had not further acknowledged the broader context of the SEC's regulatory conduct, including a recent appellate ruling labeling the SEC's previous actions as 'arbitrary and capricious,' and the Debt Box case, where SEC lawyers were sanctioned.
He noted that in the Ripple case, Judge Sarah Netburn had previously criticized SEC lawyers for 'lacking fidelity to the law.' He anticipated arguments citing legislative developments such as the CLARITY Act or the GENIUS Act to underscore the changing regulatory landscape.
Deaton asserted that Ripple might have been better served by highlighting the potential competitive disadvantage it faces if an injunction persists, especially as banking partners and counterparties may favor companies like Circle that operate without such legal hindrances. He concluded that the submission seemed to hinge on political change at the leadership level, summarizing the implicit message of the legal briefing as: 'Look judge, elections have consequences, and this one is one of them.'