Ripple Labs’ split-decision victory against the United States securities regulator is being seen as a significant blow to the regulator’s “war on crypto,” however, crypto lawyers warn it isn’t a definitive victory for the industry.
In a landmark ruling on July 13, Judge Torres determined that XRP (XRP) is not a security — at least when sold to the general public.
The decision was met with a joyous uproar from XRP token holders and came with a massive surge in the token’s price, with industry heavyweights lauding the decision as likely to aid crypto exchanges Coinbase and Binance in their respective lawsuits.
Luke Martin, the founder of crypto investment firm Venture Coinist noted that the “core component” of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) claim in its suits against Binance and Coinbase is that they offered the sale of unregistered securities on their platforms.
After losing on this matter in the case of XRP, Martin believes this will serve as a substantial blow to the SEC and its chair, Gary Gensler.
He called the decision “inconceivably bullish” for the industry:
This Ripple news is larger than XRP…
Remember when the SEC went on an all-out attack versus crypto a few months ago?
•Suing Binance for breaking securities rules •Suing Coinbase for breaking securities rules •Targeting 10-15 large altcoins as securities
Pro-XRP lawyer John Deaton shared a similar sentiment, stating that Coinbase was the other “winner” from the ruling and that altcoins would stand to benefit.
Similarly, Tyler Winklevoss, the CEO of cryptocurrency exchange Gemini, said the ruling “decimates” the SEC’s case against Coinbase. His twin brother, Cameron Winklevoss referred to the ruling as a “watershed moment” that will make it difficult for the SEC to claim authority over cryptocurrencies.
Coinbase, Kraken and iTrustShares have already relisted XRP on their respective platforms following the decision.
Words of caution
Despite the positive outcome for XRP, several digital asset lawyers warned against celebrating too soon.
Law firm partner Stephen Palley of Brown Rudnick noted that the summary judgement is only “partial” and that the ruling by Judge Torres does not set a precedent — instead, it may only serve as persuasive commentary for future courts to follow if they so choose.
A word of caution: that order in the Ripple case is a partial summary judgment from a single district court judge.
While persuasive, it’s not binding precedent on other courts and will likely be appealed and could be reversed
Palley and others noted that there’s also the chance the SEC may appeal the decision, which presents the possibility that a higher court overturns the rulings made by Judge Torres.
However, Paradigm policy director and former SEC adviser Justin Slaughter said that “the odds are even if they win at the appellate level, they’ll lose at the Supreme Court” because it “has been very hostile to a bunch of agencies recently, on a host of issues from the APA to how staffing at agencies works. I don’t expect them to miss a chance to cite a Democratic judge to thwack a major agency.”
Ripple will also need to deal with the SEC’s claim that Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and co-founder Chris Larsen “aided and abetted” the institutional sale of XRP, says U.S. lawyer James “MetaLawMan” Murphy.
Based on my quick read through, it looks like the only thing left for trial would be the claim that Larsen and Garlinghouse “aided and abetted” Ripple’s Institutional Sales of XRP–which were the only sales the court found to violate the law. https://t.co/mi7i4Diy9j
The SEC alleged $728 million worth of XRP was sold from institutional sales.
United States-based commercial litigator Joe Carlasare ripped Garlinghouse on this point, asserting that Ripple “made $700 million in unlawful profit.”
No, the most important part of the ruling is the Court found that your company broke the law and made illegal institutional sales.
Your company made $700 million in unlawful profit. Good luck at trial claiming ignorance of Howey https://t.co/qSWEt34yFD
The Bank of England is worried that a rise in financiers’ lending to data center lending may cause an AI bubble reminiscent of the dot-com crash in the early 2000s.
A reference to China being an “enemy” of the UK was removed from key evidence for a collapsed spy trial in 2023 as it “did not reflect government policy” under the Conservatives at the time, according to the national security adviser.
In the letter published by parliament’s Joint Committee on National Security Strategy earlier on Friday, National Security Adviser (NSA) Jonathan Powell said Counter Terror Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were aware of the change made by Deputy National Security Adviser (DSNA) Matt Collins.
This would mean the CPS knew the “enemy” reference had been removed before charging the two suspects, according to Mr Powell.
In another letter published on Friday, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson told the committee that it took DSNA Mr Collins more than a year to confirm to prosecutors he would not say China posed a threat to UK national security in court.
The DPP said a High Court judge ruled in June last year that an “enemy” under law is a state which “presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security”, prompting the CPS to ask the DNSA whether China fulfilled that criteria.
He added prosecutors did not believe there would be “any difficulty in obtaining evidence” from Mr Collins that China was a national security threat, but added: “This was a sticking point that could not be overcome.”
More on China
Related Topics:
Mr Parkinson added that the DNSA’s “unwillingness” to describe China as an active or current threat was “fatal to the case” because Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry’s defence teams would have been entitled to call him as a witness.
The DPP added: “This factor is compounded by the fact that drafts of the first witness statement, reviewed by us in July 2025, showed that references to China being an ‘enemy’ or ‘possible enemy’ had been deleted.
“Those drafts would probably have been disclosable to the defence.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:38
What do we know about the China spy case?
A final draft of Mr Collins’ statement was sent to then-prime minister Rishi Sunak in December 2023, Mr Powell’s letter said.
“Drafts of a statement provided to DNSA included the term ‘enemy’ but he removed this term from the final draft as it did not reflect government policy,” the letter reads.
It comes amid a political row over the collapse of the prosecution of Christopher Berry and Christopher Cash last month, who were accused of conducting espionage for China.
Both individuals vehemently deny the claims.
Because the CPS was pursuing charges under the Official Secrets Act 1911, prosecutors would have had to show the defendants were acting for an “enemy”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
China spy row: Witness statements explained
DPP Mr Parkinson has come under pressure to provide a fuller explanation for the abandonment of the case.
He has blamed insufficient evidence being provided by the government that Beijing represented a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences.
The Conservatives have accused Sir Keir Starmer of letting the case collapse, but Labour has said there was nothing more it could have done.
The current government has insisted ministers did not intervene in the case or attempt to make representations to ensure the strength of evidence, for fear of interfering with the course of justice.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer met Chinese premier Xi Jingping in November 2024. Pic: PA
The DNSA and DPP will face questions from the parliamentary committee on Monday afternoon.
The current attorney general, Lord Hermer, and the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, Darren Jones, will be questioned on Wednesday.
The PM’s spokesman reiterated the government’s position that “what is relevant in a criminal case of this nature is the government’s position at the time of the alleged offences”.