The SEC and Ripple had asked the court to remove the standing injunction requiring Ripple to comply with federal securities laws and reduce the $125 million penalty by more than 50%.
However, Judge Torres refused both requests in a one-line response, stating:
“The request is DENIED.”
In the court filing, the court found that the parties failed to meet the stringent requirements to alter a final judgment.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, changes to a final ruling demand extraordinary circumstances. In this instance, the court saw no such justification.
Judge Torres reaffirmed that Ripple had already been found violating federal securities laws, with a demonstrated likelihood of continued misconduct.
She emphasized that the original ruling was about upholding public interest and deterring future violations, and not just penalizing Ripple.
The judge also rejected the idea that a final ruling could be vacated simply because both parties had agreed to settle.
Citing Supreme Court precedent, she stressed that judicial decisions, especially those concerning federal law, are matters of public interest and not subject to private agreement alone.
According to Judge Torres:
“The Supreme Court has emphasized, however, that the judgment of a court is “not merely the property of private litigants. It is a final judgment that belongs ‘to the legal community as a whole’ and ‘should stand unless a court concludes that the public interest would be served by a vacatur.’”
Judge Torres further stressed that the case extends beyond Ripple and the SEC.
According to her, the penalty and injunction serve broader regulatory goals: protecting investors, maintaining market integrity, and reinforcing compliance within the crypto space.
The ruling also highlighted that Ripple’s actions were not minor or inadvertent but marked by willful violations over an extended period.
She concluded that neither Ripple’s intent to settle nor the SEC’s willingness to compromise could override the need for accountability.
