SEC Faces a Crossroad in Ripple Lawsuit Following Rejection of Interlocutory Appeal

SEC Faces a Crossroad in Ripple Lawsuit Following Rejection of Interlocutory Appeal

Judge Analisa Torres rejected the SEC’s appeal in the Ripple case, upholding XRP’s non-security status. Attorney Marc Fagel discusses the SEC’s next steps, including trial, settlement, or case dismissal.

Key Takeaways

  • Judge Analisa Torres denies SEC’s motion for an interlocutory appeal in the Ripple case.
  • Ripple garners a notable victory, though is fined $700 million for alleged unregistered securities sales.
  • The trial is set to continue on April 23, 2024, with the crypto community watching closely.
  • Regulatory expert Marc Fagel sheds light on possible SEC strategies and approaches moving forward.

The ongoing legal tussle between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Ripple has witnessed a pivotal turn of events, as Judge Analisa Torres refutes the SEC’s plea for an interlocutory appeal, thereby sustaining the mid-July ruling which proclaimed XRP not a security. Alongside, Ripple has been levied a substantial fine of $700 million for purportedly conducting unregistered securities sales to various legal entities. The legal proceedings are scheduled to persist on April 23, 2024.

Marc Fagel, a seasoned regulatory professional and retired attorney specializing in securities litigation and SEC enforcement, has articulated his perspectives regarding the SEC’s potential forthcoming maneuvers in this crucial legal clash.

Fagel elucidated that the SEC lacks the authority to decline the court’s decision on its interlocutory appeal, asserting that the second circuit would not acknowledge an interlocutory appeal spurned by the district court. Moreover, he remarked that no adept attorney would engage in such a rejection.

He outlines that the SEC is now tasked with meticulously addressing the individual case pitted against Ripple. This could materialize through various channels, encompassing proceeding to trial, navigating towards a settlement, or opting for case dismissal. Further, the SEC is challenged with deciphering the pertinent remedies for Ripple’s accused illicit securities offering, which could see the light either through settlement negotiations or through court presentations.

In an additional response, Fagel expressed that notwithstanding his disagreements with the SEC’s approaches towards regulating the cryptocurrency domain, there exist instances where their actions are justified. He emphasized that the SEC’s decision to litigate Ripple for illicitly amassing $700 million, thereby contravening securities regulations, was an apt move.


The unfolding saga between the SEC and Ripple underscores a defining moment for regulatory frameworks and their intersections with the cryptocurrency sphere. While Ripple’s partial victory resonates as a significant moment for crypto proponents, it also throws into sharp relief the legal and regulatory hurdles that cryptocurrency entities might face in navigating the complex and evolving landscape of global finance.

This case may serve as a precedent, illuminating the challenges and possibilities inherent within the regulatory dialogue encompassing cryptocurrencies. It lays down a foundation for discussions about regulatory clarity, legal compliance, and how digital assets will be situated within global economic architectures. Thus, the trajectory of this lawsuit not only impacts Ripple and XRP but also sets a stage for the broader dialogue on crypto regulation.