Attorney Fred Rispoli has weighed in on Ripple Labs Inc.’s June 17 supplemental letter filed in the Southern District of New York, which supports the joint motion for an indicative ruling in the ongoing SEC v. Ripple case. The filing was shared with the XRP community by legal analyst James K. Filan. The document outlines Ripple’s position on three key issues related to the ongoing legal process, particularly regarding the proposed dissolution of the “obey the law” injunction. Rispoli described the two-page filing as “not the strongest attempt,” but acknowledged that it was a necessary step to address significant gaps in the record. He noted that Ripple’s supplemental letter tackled three major issues that had previously gone unaddressed in the parties’ earlier submissions. At 1.5 pgs, this is not the strongest attempt–but it's an attempt. This concisely addresses three issues that were so obviously unaddressed that Ripple finally realized it had to say something: (1) the district court isn't the end-all of this case, appellate courts are–and… https://t.co/vwjR0Fbntb — Fred Rispoli (@freddyriz) June 17, 2025 Appellate Risk Acknowledged and Addressed The first issue highlighted by Rispoli was the appellate implications of the case. In his assessment, he pointed out that Ripple had now formally acknowledged that the district court’s ruling is not the final word on the matter. This recognition, he stated, helps address and potentially mitigate “appellate risk,” signaling Ripple’s awareness that future litigation or rulings by higher courts could impact the resolution of the case. Ripple’s filing, as seen in the letter, clarifies that the Summary Judgment Order from the district court remains binding on the parties. It also suggests that the appellate process will help shape the final legal resolution. The company supports a negotiated resolution that avoids prolonging what has already been a resource-intensive legal battle. Injunction Dissolution Poses No Substantive Legal Change The second issue discussed by Rispoli in his commentary is the implication of dissolving the injunction imposed on Ripple. He remarked that Ripple effectively argues nothing material would change by removing the “vanilla injunction,” since the company remains obligated to follow the law under existing securities regulations, regardless of whether the injunction remains in place. This position is reinforced in the filing, which states that Ripple will not be absolved of its responsibilities even if the court agrees to the proposed relief. Ripple clarified that its compliance with securities laws is not contingent on the existence of an injunction, as the Summary Judgment Order remains enforceable. This distinction was positioned to demonstrate that the settlement proposal does not undermine the legal standards set by the court. We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025 Ripple’s Unique Position in the SEC’s Regulatory Strategy The third point Rispoli underscored in his response is Ripple’s assertion that it was uniquely targeted by the SEC before the agency’s broader enforcement campaign against other digital asset companies. He noted that Ripple highlighted its early involvement with the SEC as a factor that led to its protracted litigation, unlike other firms that have resolved their cases more quickly or received favorable discretionary treatment from the regulator. The supplemental filing cites recent changes within the SEC , including the creation of a dedicated crypto task force and a renewed approach to rulemaking in the digital assets space. Ripple used this context to justify its request for the court to acknowledge the proposed settlement terms, which aim to resolve the case while aligning Ripple with other industry participants whose disputes have already concluded. Cautious Optimism from Rispoli While Rispoli expressed some disappointment in the force of Ripple’s arguments, he concluded that the filing was meaningful and could influence the court’s approach. He remarked that although the submission was not overwhelmingly persuasive, it nonetheless instilled a greater sense of optimism about a possible resolution. In his view, Ripple’s effort to formally address these three legal and procedural gaps might be sufficient to move the process toward closure. Disclaimer : This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses. Follow us on X , Facebook , Telegram , and Google News The post Ripple (XRP) vs SEC as of June 18, 2025: Not the Strongest Attempt appeared first on Times Tabloid .
